Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Joint Military Action (United States)

Mr. Cohen: When he last met his United States counterpart to discuss procedures for joint military action. [26097]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I met United States Defence Secretary Cohen at a long-standing engagement in Germany this weekend. We discussed a number of issues, including the situation in Iraq and Bosnia.

Mr. Cohen: Were the following two questions discussed? First, why is a war that kills hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent Iraqis morally worth while? Secondly, is a war that leaves Saddam Hussein in place, perhaps to cause more trouble later, morally worth the life of a single British or American soldier?

Mr. Robertson: First, I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces who cannot be here because he underwent a small operation on Friday; he is now at home and recovering well.
All that we ask of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime is that they comply fully with the United Nations Security Council resolutions that they accepted at the end of the Gulf war. We simply want them to allow unconditional, unrestricted access by the weapons inspectors to sites that they think may have information about—or actual—weapons of mass destruction. Force is simply there as an option of last resort—and an option of last resort without which it is quite clear that Saddam would not be interested in complying with his international obligations. If there is a confrontation it is not between Great Britain and the United States and Iraq but between Iraq and the United Nations, and it is the UN's credibility that is now at stake.

Mr. Wilkinson: What are the exact arrangements for defining the rules of engagement of British troops in the Iraqi theatre, and what are the command and control arrangements? Would British forces in that theatre come directly under the command of an American general officer or flag officer, or would the British take their orders directly from Northwood?

Mr. Robertson: As the hon. Gentleman would predict, and as I know he will accept is reasonable, I have no intention of being drawn into any details about military action that might have to be taken if all the diplomatic options were exhausted. The use of force and the deployment of our forces in the Gulf today are simply the mechanisms by which we hope Saddam will realise that he must comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The arrangements for that force, if that force has to be used, will not be speculated on from the Dispatch Box. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi regime should be left under no illusions that if we have to deploy, there will be a fairly firm response to what he is doing.

Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if military action is to be used in the near future, it is rather important to set out our objectives quite clearly? Every effort, however difficult, should be made to avoid civilian casualties which would not only be wrong in themselves but would give added political ammunition to


the murderous dictator in Iraq. Does my right hon. Friend further agree that, if we abandoned any threat of the use of military action, it would mean that Saddam Hussein had won a victory and that there would be no question of his allowing unrestricted access to weapons? If he knew that no action would be taken against him, why should he show any flexibility whatever?

Mr. Robertson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend: he is absolutely right. The aim of any military action that we took if diplomacy were to fail, would be to oblige Saddam to comply with UN Security Council resolutions. Not just the safety, security and stability of Saddam's neighbours in the middle east—a volatile and important part of the world—but the credibility of the United Nations are at stake. If that credibility were to be destroyed or undermined by a Saddam victory at this point, what future would there be for international world order?
In recent days, the House has already heard of some of the horrifying weapons that Saddam Hussein has used and may still have in hiding, but the House will wish to know that I am today making available new information on Iraq's chemical weapons capability at the time of the Gulf war. That concerns recently received intelligence that Iraq may have possessed large quantities of a chemical weapons agent known as Agent 15 since the 1980s. Agent 15 is a mental incapacitant, exposure to which is likely to lead to weakness, dizziness, disorientation and loss of co-ordination, among other symptoms. We remain of the view that there is no confirmed evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Iraq during the Gulf war, but I am making this public in line with our undertaking to Gulf veterans to make available any information that we possess that is of potential relevance to Gulf veterans' health issues.
Rather than read a full statement of that information now, I shall seek permission to have it published in the Official Report. In addition, copies will be available in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House this afternoon. My noble Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement is making similar arrangements in another place.

Mr. Martin Bell: Speaking as one who was in the front line last time, may I ask for the Secretary of State's personal assurance that no similar action will be contemplated without the same sort of coalition of opinion at home and support in the Arab world and in the United Nations at large?

Mr. Robertson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is complete unanimity in the UN Security Council and indeed among the widespread allies of this country and of the United States of America that what Saddam Hussein is doing at present is unacceptable, that he must comply with UN Security Council resolutions in relation to weapons of mass destruction, and that he must allow unrestricted, unfettered and immediate access by the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq weapons inspectors to all sites that they believe may be involved

in the production or use of weapons of mass destruction. On that there is absolute unanimity. I agree with what Prince Sultan, Saudi Arabia's Minister of Defence and Civil Aviation, said yesterday:
We say to Saddam Hussein to abide by the United Nations resolutions to protect his people and put an end to their seven-year-long suffering.

Mr. Dalyell: Who sold Agent 15 to the Iraqis?

Mr. Robertson: I do not know who sold Agent 15 to the Iraqis. My hon. Friend will have noticed that I became Secretary of State for Defence on 3 May last year, since when we have put in place a number of investigations and research projects into those elements that might have affected our veterans who fought in the Gulf war in 1990. What I am bothered about is that we now have information that, among all the other horrifying weapons that Saddam has used in the past, and among all the weapons that we know he had and may well have destroyed but is probably still hiding, is now another agent, Agent 15, the like of which should make most of us wonder why on earth there is any equivocation in forcing him to comply with his obligations.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if it had not been for joint military action in August 1990, the risk is that Saudi Arabia would have been invaded, and that, if it had not been for joint military action in January 1991, the likelihood is that Kuwait would still be occupied? Does he share my surprise that those who argue against the use of force or the threat of the use of force offer no alternative sanction by which to compel Saddam Hussein to accept the obligations in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions, which embody the terms of the peace settlement to which he agreed?

Mr. Robertson: I am not surprised at all. I cannot understand those who say that force was not required on the last occasion. I am absolutely certain that had we not been forced to use force during the Gulf war, Saddam Hussein would still be in possession of Kuwait and may well have extended his ambitions to many other countries in the region.
Ten years ago this year, I went to Diyarbaká and Mardin in Turkey, near the border with Iraq and Syria. I met some Kurdish citizens of Iraq who had crossed the border to flee the chemical bombs filled with sarin deadly gas which Saddam had rained down on the small town of Halabja. Their stories and their faces will live with me for ever.
If a man like Saddam could use such dreadful, horrifying weapons against his own people, I could not sleep comfortably at night knowing that he would retain that capability and threaten his neighbours and, indeed, the wider middle east.

Ms Abbott: The Secretary of State keeps calling the United Nations in aid when referring to the possibility of a military strike against Iraq. Is it not the case that there is no unanimity in the United Nations for a military strike, still less any support for it in the Arab world? Does not that give him pause for thought?

Mr. Robertson: There is total unanimity in the United Nations Security Council and in the Arab world that


Saddam must comply with the Security Council resolutions. There is total agreement among all states that he must allow the UNSCOM inspectors in, and that there must continue to be a regime of inspection to ensure that he does not hold weapons ready to be deployed against his neighbours in the first instance.
The route of diplomacy is still open—there is still time for Saddam to comply with the Security Council resolutions. However, as we move towards the point where diplomacy is seen to fail—if that is the case—I have no doubt that his neighbours and the wider world will recognise that there are few options left.

Sir George Young: We welcome the new information about nerve agents to which the Secretary of State referred, and join him in wishing a speedy recovery to the Minister for the Armed Forces following his operation.
Our armed forces face the possibility of conflict with Iraq. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Opposition strongly support the Government's robust approach—even if all their supporters cannot. The responsibility for any action rests with Saddam Hussein. There is a principle at stake—the credibility of collective action against unacceptable dictatorship.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the interaction of the strategic defence review with the mobilisation that is under way. He must be anxious to ensure that there is no threat to the morale of our armed forces, and no distraction from the task in hand for officials and Ministers, through the strategic defence review. Will he assure the House that, if necessary, he will suspend the review until the crisis has passed?

Mr. Robertson: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's good wishes for my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. I also welcome his support for the credibility of military force as an option of last resort if diplomacy fails and we are not able to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply with the Security Council resolutions.
Morale among our forces is good. Despite what has happened to them over the years, and despite the current overstretch that they are feeling—and we are trying to deal with that—they are ready and willing to serve their country wherever they are sent. Those who serve on Invincible, Nottingham and Coventry, on the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels and in the RAF Tornados being deployed from Bruggen today have a determination and dedication to uphold the international rule of law.
The strategic defence review is designed to build on our current experience and that which we have gained over the past few years, so that we can configure our armed forces better to deal with the problems and the risks that they might face. That is being done in a more open and consensual way than has been the case in any previous defence review. That adds to the sense of spirit that is displayed every day by the armed forces of the Crown, in which I have such great pride.

Ms Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only the credibility of the United Nations but possibly its future role, particularly in world peacekeeping, is being called into question by Saddam Hussein's behaviour? Does he agree that Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of the Security Council resolutions will only encourage other dictators to behave in the same fashion and to follow

Hussein's example—by placing more importance on the building of presidential palaces than on the welfare of their people or on world peace?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend speaks with power and she speaks rightly of the situation. There is something tragically ironic in the fact that Saddam is willing to use his people—especially children—as propaganda tools, showing off their misery to the world, whereas, since the end of the Gulf war, he has spent $1 billion in building a reputed 45 presidential palaces. Children are being allowed to starve when he could buy food by selling oil, and his people are denied medications and medical treatment when he could import as many medical supplies as he wanted. He pretends that the outside world, rather than his own desperate regime, is the enemy of his people.

Following is the information:
Iraq has still not fully disclosed the extent of its programme to acquire chemical and biological weapons: it has consistently sought to obstruct the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) from carrying out the mandates of Security Council Resolutions 687 and 699. In particular, it has sought to deceive UNSCOM about the scale of its production of the highly toxic nerve agent VX and the use of chemical warfare agents during the Iran/lraq war. Iraq has also yet to admit to producing plague bacteria as part of its biological warfare programme.
The MOD has recently received intelligence, believed to be reliable, which indicates that, at the time of the Gulf War, Iraq may have possessed large quantities of a chemical warfare mental incapacitant agent known as Agent 15.
Our knowledge of Agent 15 itself is limited. Agent 15 is one of a large group of chemicals called glycollates (esters of glycollic acid). The best known is usually referred to by the initials BZ. The physiological effects of these compounds are typical of anticholinergic agents, which block cholinergic nerve transmission in the central and peripheral nervous system.
On the basis of animal studies with BZ and other related materials which were carried out some years ago, we believe that the immediate effects of Agent 15 would include: dilated pupils, flushed faces, dry mouth, tachycardia, increase in skin and body temperature, weakness, dizziness, disorientation, visual hallucinations, confusions, loss of time sense, loss of co-ordination and stupor.
We have known since 1985 that Iraq was investigating CW agents of this type, but the first indication of a specific interest in Agent 15 came in a brief reference contained in an Iraqi document, which we became aware of in August 1995 and which stated that Iraq was carrying out laboratory research on this agent. The first indications that Iraq had possessed large stocks of Agent 15 came late last year, since when my Department has conducted an assessment of the relevant scientific and background information.
MOD remains of the view that there is no confirmed evidence of the use of CW by Iraq during the Gulf War. We are nevertheless considering how best to investigate Agent 15 further, with a view to gaining a better understanding of its long term effects. This will be taken into account in our ongoing work to address Gulf veterans' health concerns.

Aircraft Carriers

Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the current strategic importance and future need for aircraft carriers in the Royal Navy. [26098]

Mr. George Robertson: The future requirement for aircraft carriers is being considered as part of the strategic defence review.

Mr. Heath: My question may be particularly apposite because of the current deployment of HMS Illustrious and


HMS Invincible and the aircrew from Royal Naval Air Station Yeovilton. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the carrier fleet provides the essential platform for extending the reach of British peacekeeping capacity? Will he therefore ensure that that view is reflected as the defence review continues?

Mr. Robertson: The simple answer to that question is yes. We are certainly examining the case for a future generation of carriers, although we must also weigh and balance the implications that that would have for the rest of our armed forces and for the Budget. The work will of course take into account the role being played in the Gulf by Royal Navy aircraft carriers. The requirement to provide platforms to support fixed-wing aircraft beyond the life of carriers in the Invincible class is a serious and a big issue that will have to be weighed and balanced by any Government, and is therefore a crucial part of our considerations in the strategic defence review.

Mr. Hutton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the important role played by our existing carrier fleet in maintaining Britain's effective amphibious capability? Will he also confirm that that key capability is one that we will want to retain into the next decade?

Mr. Robertson: I recognise the very strong constituency interest that my hon. Friend represents and the power with which he expresses his view. The roles of our armed forces are being examined in the most thorough and detailed—but still open—manner that we have seen for many years. His point is taken and will be given due consideration.

Mr. Soames: Even allowing for the fact that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) will have been heavily got at by the Fleet Air Arm, does not the Secretary of State agree—as he already has done, again—that the presence so speedily of Illustrious and Invincible in the Gulf, to reinforce the coalition's determination to ensure that Saddam Hussein is compelled to honour his obligations, is a very powerful ideal for the future of the carrier fleet? Will he tell the House what he has in mind for the aircraft that will go on future carriers? Is he thinking of retaining jump jet type aircraft, or will he be more conventional, as the Americans have been?

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point about our carriers in the Gulf. It is appropriate especially to recognise the service of HMS Invincible, its crew and the RAF staff who are also on board. They have been at sea since 2 September last year. They are now in the Gulf and will be relieved by HMS Illustrious when it gets to that part of the world. Their sacrifice and service is something for which we are profoundly grateful, and their families' sacrifice in being without them for such a long time should also be put on the record.
The hon. Gentleman of course recognises that the decision on a future generation of carriers cannot be separated from the future of the RAF jets. Clearly, that configuration and the balance that has to be struck in that respect are a central part of the defence review. It is one of the critical decisions that we will have to take during that review.

Defence-related Industries (Chelmsford)

Mr. Burns: If he will make a statement on defence contracts that have been placed by his Department with defence-related industries in the Chelmsford local authority area; and what is the total value of those contracts since 1 May 1997. [26099]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): A total of 271 contracts have been placed by the Ministry of Defence directly with defence-related industries in the Chelmsford area since May 1997. The total value of these contracts is £6.76 million. These figures do not include any contracts which may have been placed by defence agencies as this information could not be compiled without incurring disproportionate cost.

Mr. Burns: I thank the Minister for that reply. My constituents will be extremely heartened by those figures, given that the constituency contains a significant number of defence-related industries. Will the Minister confirm and reassure my constituents further that where it is feasible and economically possible, the Government will continue the practice of placing the vast majority of defence contracts with British companies to safeguard British jobs?

Mr. Spellar: I am very much aware of the excellent defence companies in the Chelmsford area. The defence review is examining the establishment of systems of working in partnership with the defence industry. This would be to the benefit of British industry, would provide a service and supplies to our armed forces consistent with our value-for-money policy, and ensure that we are internationally competitive.
When I visited defence industry companies in Chelmsford, I was impressed by their diversification into civilian areas which has helped to sustain the industry there. We are looking at the examples that they have provided to be incorporated into our defence diversification paper which will be published in March.

Mr. Key: I join the Minister in congratulating the defence-related companies in Chelmsford, among which is Marconi. When will the Minister be in a position to make an announcement about the future of the next generation military satellite communications system of which Marconi is of course potentially an important part?

Mr. Spellar: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are involved in that with our European partners, and we hope to be making an announcement shortly as to the outcome.

Armed Forces Personnel (Educational Attainment)

Mr. Boswell: If he will make a statement on recent changes in the level of educational attainment by armed forces personnel. [26100]

Mr. Spellar: Service in the armed forces offers many thousands of young men and women the opportunity to obtain educational, professional and trade-related skills and qualifications which will serve them in good stead through life. While there has been no significant change


in the recent levels of educational achievement, all three services continue to promote a varied and comprehensive range of training and education opportunities for their personnel.

Mr. Boswell: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that over the years the armed forces have built an enviable record in the education, training and motivation of young adults coming from widely varying prior levels of attainment? Does he feel that it might even be appropriate to consider sharing some of their experience with both his and their civilian counterparts, and that there may be something for the rest of the education sector to learn from what they have achieved?

Mr. Spellar: On behalf of the services, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to their work. We have one of the best-trained work forces in the country, if not the world. We are also looking at undertaking more work with youngsters and, from September 1998, the Army foundation college at Harrogate will accept school leavers. There has been a great deal of extremely good work, particularly in educational techniques. If they can be applied elsewhere, it will be a tribute to the work carried out in the forces over a number of years.

Mr. Maginnis: Will Ministers ensure that consideration is given to any new proposals in respect of the relative periods that the Royal Irish Regiment spends on operational duties, training and leave so that soldiers who have spent 28 years on continuous operational duties are better able to benefit from the educational opportunities available to other regiments?

Mr. Spellar: Yes. Tours of duty are being considered as a key part of the strategic defence review and we shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's comments in the light of that.

Royal Naval College

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: What estimate he has made of the cost of the dilapidations at the royal naval college. [26101]

Mr. George Robertson: A sum of £11.1 million to cover the backlog of repairs at the royal naval college has been agreed with the Greenwich Foundation by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and my Department.
Negotiations are proceeding on the quantum of other elements of a dilapidations settlement, which could add some £5 million to that amount.

Mrs. Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the buildings are some of the most illustrious and distinguished of our architectural heritage and, to use his words, it would be "tragically ironic" if at the time of the millennium they were little more than a derelict site? It is vital that negotiations should be completed, a timetable announced and proper funding arrangements set in place so that those buildings can play a part at the millennium. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has pickpocketed the national lottery for his own purposes, to pay back and make sure that there is a fair settlement at Greenwich.

Mr. Robertson: There are great issues involved, so I shall be as gentle as I possibly can with the right

hon. Lady. After all, I am trying to make sense of the arrangements that I inherited from the previous Administration in respect of that valuable site. Of course, the right hon. Lady was one of the two Secretaries of State involved in those arrangements. I make no criticism—[Interruption]—of that particular fact, but the issues are complex, and several parties with differing interests are involved in the negotiations. The new arrangements need to be secure to safeguard the magnificent site at Greenwich. It is worth reflecting that it will be only the second change in occupation in the 300-year-long history of the royal naval college site at Greenwich. If the right hon. Lady had listened to my reply to her question, she would have heard that I have already made available £11.1 million—not money left behind by the previous Government—to make sure that one of our great national treasures is maintained in the form in which it should be maintained. We shall continue to work hard on all the arrangements to ensure that by the millennium there is another great attraction in Greenwich to mark the turn of the century.

United Kingdom Land Command

Mr. Bayley: If he will make a statement about the future district structure of United Kingdom Land Command. [26102]

Mr. Spellar: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army's Land Command has set in hand a study of the future structure of his command in the United Kingdom, the recommendations of which will be considered as part of the strategic defence review.

Mr. Bayley: I am aware of the study as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces has answered with great openness a series of written questions on the matter. I ask my hon. Friend to pass on to him my thanks for that and my wishes for a speedy recovery. Can my hon. Friend give me two assurances: first, that there will be no change in the structure of Land Command before the issue is referred to Ministers for decision, and secondly, given that the second divisional headquarters is at Imphal barracks in York, that the appropriate Minister will meet a deputation from the City of York to discuss the Land Command structure before the ministerial decision is made?

Mr. Spellar: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest and for the detailed representations that he has made. As he has said, Ministers will decide on the issue as part of the strategic defence review. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces will be pleased to receive my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) in a deputation on that important issue when he returns.

Mr. Brazier: I also wish the Minister for the Armed Forces a speedy recovery. Are Ministers taking account of the fact that, until a few years ago, our forces in Britain were traditionally organised in a mixture of regular and territorial brigades commanded by operational headquarters? Is it best for them to be organised as they are now in a series of mixed brigades commanded by largely civilianised headquarters? Does the Minister


believe that any of the brigades would be deployable in their current shape? Are those not proper subjects for review?

Mr. Spellar: They are very much proper subjects for review. That is why the Commander-in-Chief of the Army's Land Command is undertaking that review. We look forward to receiving his considerations. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will also want to put his views.

Iraq

Ann Clwyd: What assessment he has made of the military threat posed by Iraq. [26103]

Mr. George Robertson: Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq has twice launched attacks on its neighbours. It still possesses large ground and air forces capable of operating beyond its borders. We assess that Saddam Hussein has ambitions to rebuild a weapons of mass destruction capability and retains some of the elements needed for that, including chemical and biological agents and prohibited missiles or their components. The work of the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq is crucial in denying him that capability to threaten the stability of the region.

Ann Clwyd: Given that military action is hardly likely to remove the main problem—Saddam Hussein and his closest associates—would my right hon. Friend support bringing Saddam Hussein before an international criminal court to be tried for war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide? Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices with the Turkish Government, who are preparing to seal their borders? In the event of a refugee crisis, any Kurds attempting to flee to another country would once again have only Iran to turn to.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend has been brave and consistent in her long opposition to Saddam Hussein and his regime. She has constantly supported the Kurds, against whom Saddam Hussein has already deployed sarin bombs—terrifying weapons of mass destruction—in 1988. Her words have some authority. We must ask whether it would be possible to indict Saddam or bring him before a court, as is currently being suggested. By one means or another, his people must be the final court of judgment on what he has done to them and their country.
As to the possibility of the Turkish armed forces taking action on their border, we have to bear it in mind that, although the large majority of Kurds in northern Iraq are peaceful and have no wish to be aggressive against their Turkish neighbour, there are elements in the PKK and other groups whose sole intention is to destabilise and attack the Government of Turkey. I hope that the Turkish Government will use their discretion and wisdom when the world community is focusing on the iniquities of Saddam and will be as generous and humanitarian to the Kurds as they have been in the past.

Mr. Blunt: If military force has to be deployed against Iraq, will the Secretary of State ensure that the military objectives set for our forces and those of the United States and other members of any coalition are linked to clear political objectives?

Mr. Robertson: They are; the aim of military action will be to oblige Saddam to comply with the United

Nations Security Council resolutions. That is the object of the diplomacy and the efforts that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and many others. If it comes to the bit, if that diplomacy fails and if we have to use force, that is what the objective will be.

Dr. Iddon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Gulf operation is code-named Operation Bolton? How usual is it to use place names? Does he agree that such use might be seen by some to be controversial? Might it not be better to stick to code names such as Desert Storm?

Mr. Robertson: The name Bolton for the operation going on in the Gulf was chosen at random from a list of possible operation names. If that same random process had resulted in the operation being called Operation Hamilton, I know that my constituents would have been very proud to have been associated with an effort to resume international law and order and comply with UN Security Council resolutions. I know that my hon. Friend's constituents will share the same sense of pride in our service men and service women, who are standing up at this moment and putting their lives on the line for what we and they know is right.

Firing Ranges

Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the plans announced on 23 January 1998 to reorganise the firing ranges. [26104]

Mr. Spellar: The rationalisation of the land ranges operated by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency announced on 23 January is the outcome of the second stage of a review to address the problems of overcapacity and under-utilisation. Subject to consultation with trade unions and MOD customers, the main changes proposed are that Pendine and Shoeburyness ranges would be maintained for access to their unique facilities on a trials campaign only basis, and as much work as possible would be undertaken at Eskmeals.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the anger and fury of the 200 employees at Shoeburyness who face redundancy following the Minister's letter, which overturned a decision made as recently as March to plan for the closure of Eskmeals—apparently for no reason which we can think of other than that the area is represented by a Cabinet Minister? As Eskmeals is the only range which does not provide facilities that others can provide, what on earth is the reason for retaining it in a declining market when there is a shortage of work? Now that the Minister has decided, for no apparent reason, to keep open the three ranges, would not the best way in which to proceed be to let the market decide and let customers go to ranges that they think are most helpful?

Mr. Spellar: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that there is a declining market, which forms the backdrop against which the decision is taken. I consider it slightly unfortunate that he should impugn the professional integrity of officials at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, who gave us the technical advice, based on their evaluation of costs and effectiveness of the various ranges, that that decision should be taken. In spite of representations made to us by


hon. Members representing all three constituencies concerned, it would have been slightly perverse of us to overturn that technical advice.
We are of course aware of the impact that the decision will have on other areas. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are in discussion with local councils on how best to redevelop the site so that we can return economic activity and regeneration to the area as quickly as possible.

Mr. Ainger: Is the Minister aware that the Pendine facility in my constituency is set to lose 80 per cent. of its work force following the announcement, yet no land is being made available for alternative employment use? Will he assure me that he will supply trade unions and local authorities, which have set up a steering group to try to combat the plan, with all relevant information? Once they have developed an alternative strategy, will he or the Minister for Defence Procurement receive a delegation from that steering group?

Mr. Spellar: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We acknowledge the considerably greater difficulties that Pendine faces, especially due to the substantial amount of unexploded ordnance on that land. I very much welcome the work that is being undertaken by the Pendine steering group and local organisations. We should certainly very much welcome representations and a delegation from them in order that we can explore Pendine's future strategy.

Eurofighter

Mrs. Lait: When the RAF expects to take delivery of its first operational Eurofighter. [26105]

Mr. George Robertson: The first Eurofighter aircraft is scheduled for delivery to the Royal Air Force in June 2002.

Mrs. Lait: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, which will be a great relief to the RAF—at long last it is to get the Eurofighter. Does he agree that some of the delay has been due to the inefficient and old-fashioned ways of designing the plane that were built into the contract? Can he assure me that such contracts with our European partners will in future be let more effectively and efficiently, using modern company organisational techniques?

Mr. Robertson: I am glad of the hon. Lady's welcome for Eurofighter. It took only eight months for this Government to sign the Eurofighter contract, thereby safeguarding 14,000 jobs and the RAF's capability. It took the previous Government 15 years to get to the point at which we took over, so most of the relief was felt on 1 May last year.
The hon. Lady rightly speaks of some of the problems associated with multinational enterprises developing this sort of equipment. The record is not all that bad. Since 1986, when the full development phase began, costs have increased by a little more than £1 billion—bearing in mind the fact that the aircraft's role had to be reassessed in the light of the ending of the cold war. This has not been one of those tales of misery to which we have grown used.
Secondly, we have learnt some of the lessons. The first decision on Eurofighter was taken in 1982 and the plane will be delivered in 2002. That is clearly intolerable for an equipment project of this kind. It is one of the aspects with which we are getting to grips in the strategic defence review.
Thirdly, apart from the United States, nations on their own will probably never again be able to design a single-purpose piece of equipment such as this for their own needs, so there must be—especially European—co-operation for the future. We also have development projects with the United States. We must ensure that development phases are shorter and prices are lower; we must be more successful than in the past.

Mr. Borrow: Are not the workers at British Aerospace in Lancashire who have worked so hard on the project to be congratulated? Does my right hon. Friend remember, as I do, the comments of Conservative Members 12 months ago, before the election, who claimed that a Labour Government would not go ahead with the Eurofighter project? Does not the fact that the contract has been signed show that the British people can rely on Labour's defence policy?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is here representing a seat that is a Labour gain partly because of the record of the former Government in the north-east of England—the area which my hon. Friend represents and which will benefit so much. [HON. MEMBERS: "North-west."] Certainly, the north-west will benefit considerably from the Eurofighter project. I am extremely glad that we were able to tie up the deal and to procure for the Royal Air Force the agile, multi-role aircraft that it so desperately needs. In doing so, we have safeguarded vital British technology and vital British jobs—and the base from which my hon. Friend can look forward to a long parliamentary career.

Ships (Twinning)

Mr. Waterson: What is his policy towards the twinning of HM ships with towns; and if he will make a statement. [26106]

Mr. Spellar: It is the policy of the Royal Navy that every ship should be affiliated to a town or district and that such an association should be positively fostered. An affiliation of that sort is of great benefit to the ship's company concerned.

Mr. Waterson: Is the Minister aware of the great affection that my constituents formed for HMS Juno during a long period of twinning, which ended only with the decommissioning of that vessel? Is he also aware that I had a supportive response from Admiral Sir Peter Abbott when I wrote to him about finding another vessel with which to twin Eastbourne? As a Minister, will the hon. Gentleman do what he can to push that process along?

Mr. Spellar: We are pleased to receive representations for twinning or for the association of names with particular towns. As I said, the services very much welcome that, as do the towns, and such association definitely contributes to morale and to the profile of


defence within the community. Representations on the matter are always welcome and, if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, we shall start the appropriate process.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Brady: What steps he is taking to work towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons. [26107]

Mr. George Robertson: As we made clear in our manifesto, we are committed to the global elimination of nuclear weapons. We shall press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons.

Mr. Brady: I thank the Minister for that interesting response. While unstable and undemocratic regimes such as that in Iraq continue to hold weapons of mass destruction, is it not vital that we should retain an independent nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Robertson: This Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to retain Trident, and we shall.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Prime Minister's Question Time

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If she will reintroduce twice-weekly Prime Minister's questions. [26130]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): No, we have no plans to do so.

Mrs. Bottomley: The whole House will have been enormously sympathetic when it heard through the usual channels today that the Prime Minister is worried that not enough time is being spent explaining and presenting the Government's policies. Does not the right hon. Lady have an opportunity to assist not only the Prime Minister but the House, by suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should leave the No. 10 bunker and come to the House twice a week where, free from spin doctors, he can present and explain his Government's case and even answer questions from the Opposition since, after all, the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament?

Mrs. Taylor: Of course the Prime Minister is accountable to Parliament and he spends exactly the same time answering at Prime Minister' s Question Time as his predecessor did.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that, as one who did not favour the change from two days a week to one for Prime Minister's Question Time, I have done a little research? I have found that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), otherwise known as "Golden Virginia" has just said, my right hon. Friend has answered more questions since he has been Prime Minister. What is more, because he has not been absent from Question Time as the

previous two Prime Ministers were, he has been present to answer questions more often than was the case when the Tories were in power.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Prime Minister has not been absent from Question Time. Under the old arrangement, he would have answered questions last week for only 15 minutes because he was in America on Thursday.

Mr. Bercow: As the right hon. Lady talks with glowing pride about the Prime Minister's answers to questions, I feel sure that she will be happy to tell the House the wording of at least one of the Prime Minister's answers since 1 May last year.

Mrs. Taylor: I am indeed full of pride at the answers that the Prime Minister gives. I do not think that the quality of the questions matches those answers.

Arab World

Mr. Dalyell: If she will establish a Select Committee to examine relations with the Arab world. [26131]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: No. The subject falls within the terms of reference of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and, to a lesser extent, the Select Committee on International Development.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question of which I have given her notice in the hope of her considered reply? Given that Boutros-Boutros Ghali said yesterday that the proposed action against Iraq was illegal, as did Pérez de Cuéllar, and that Mark Weller of the Cambridge Centre of International Studies has written in The Times that preventive action of the type contemplated is unlawful, should the Government not have an obligation to set out in the Library the precise legal basis on which they are acting, because it is open to doubt in the view of the international lawyers whose names I have given to No. 10 Downing street? Indeed, lead letters in this morning's newspapers cast the gravest doubt on the legality of what the Anglo-American force is supposed to be doing.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises points that he has brought to the House's attention on other occasions during the past week or two; they are obviously issues about which he feels very strongly. However, as I have told him and the House, the House will be kept fully informed of any developments. I told him last Thursday at business questions that we have not ruled out the possibility of a debate. There will be Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions tomorrow, and I cannot add anything further at this stage.

Madam Speaker: Order. The question was about Select Committees and should have been answered as such.

Mr. Soames: May I press the President of the Council on the question of a Select Committee? The relationship between the United Kingdom and the middle east is most tortuous and difficult, so is this not a good opportunity for a Select Committee specifically to examine the
extraordinary inconsistencies between Britain's policy on Iraq—whereby Saddam Hussein will be made to disgorge those United Nations resolutions of which he is in clear breach—and her approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as the Arabs rightly believe that there is a double standard? Would that not be a good subject for a Select Committee to study?

Mrs. Taylor: I have said that I do not intend to establish a Select Committee specifically to examine relations with the Arab world. The content of any Select Committee investigation is, of course, a matter for the Select Committee itself.

The Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee was asked—

New Parliamentary Building

Mr. Wilkinson: What is the (a) current and (b) planned provision in the House of Commons estimates for the cost of constructing the new parliamentary building. [26136]

Dr. Lewis Moonie (Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee): Outturn expenditure on the new parliamentary building is forecast at £35 million for 1997–98. The House of Commons Commission has approved an estimate that includes £95 million for Portcullis house in 1998–99. The total cost forecast is now £250 million, as set out in the written answer given by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) on 10 December 1997, Official Report, column 578.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is not this a disgraceful waste of public money? The plusher the offices of Members of Parliament become, the less inclined hon. Members are to attend either the Chamber or Committees of the House. Would not the money be much better spent on something useful, such as ensuring that the Jubilee line comes into service on time?

Dr. Moonie: The building is expensive because of its situation and because it is a project on which everyone will have their eyes when it is completed. I make no apology for the building's level of finish; when I look along the Thames and see some of the monstrosities that have been allowed to grow up in the past 20 or 30 years, I am happy with the standards that are being applied.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not high time that Members of Parliament had individual offices that did not contravene the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 and that had normal light—something that many of them still do not have—and that Members of Parliament were able

to attend to their constituency and parliamentary interests in a professional and civilised manner without being made to feel like rats in the wainscot?

Dr. Moonie: I should like to see the wainscot that could accommodate me, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the increased cost of the new building is being spent to ensure that it meets modern security standards and statutory health and safety requirements.

The President of the Council was asked—

Sitting Hours

Mr. Bradshaw: If she will make a statement on progress towards reform of the hours of the parliamentary day. [26138]

Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Modernisation Committee is currently considering proposals to reform sitting hours and hopes to report soon.

Mr. Bradshaw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware of the growing concern among new Members—and some long-standing Members—about the time that it is taking to reform some aspects of the way in which the House is run? One of the most difficult aspects to understand is why we still have to have hours that run along the lines of those of a gentlemen's club.

Mrs. Taylor: The Modernisation Committee started its work by considering the legislative programme, which was believed to be the appropriate priority. We are moving on to other issues, but my hon. Friend should realise that not all hon. Members share his view on the desirability of changing our working hours in the way that he suggests. Hon. Members have a wide range of opinions and it is right that the Modernisation Committee should take account of the different views. It is not a matter of old Members versus new Members, or Labour Members versus Conservative Members: the working patterns of Members of Parliament are very different and we must try to accommodate everyone.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady for that balanced and fair answer, and for the work that she has done with the Modernisation Committee. May I urge her to consider all those issues with caution and to refuse to be over-influenced by hon. Members who have been here for a very short time?

Mrs. Taylor: We must balance the interests and needs of Members, but many new Members have made us look anew at the way we run our affairs in Parliament. That must be beneficial, although we must eventually come up with practical changes that will receive the agreement of the whole House.

Employment of Children Bill

Mr. Chris Pond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter that may be causing confusion to several hon. Members. It relates to my private Member's Bill on the employment of children, whose Second Reading will be debated on Friday.
The Order Paper for Thursday 5 February listed the Employment of Children Bill as item No. 3, instead of item No. 1, as it should have been. Several hon. Members will have made constituency arrangements to ensure that they can be present for that important debate, and I seek your guidance on the best way to set the record straight and to ensure that no confusion arises, especially among the 160 Members who signed early-day motion 712 in support of the Bill.

Madam Speaker: That seems to me to be a good deal of PR for the hon. Gentleman's private Member's Bill. He knows that the listing was a misprint, which has already been corrected.

Opposition Day

[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Child Support Agency

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. David Rendel: I beg to move,
That this House, believing that both parents have responsibility for the financial and emotional welfare of their children during the whole of their childhood, that the taxpayer should only be called upon to provide income-related benefits to support children financially when neither parent has sufficient resources to provide that support, that it is in the best interests of children if the system of child support encourages their parents to agree voluntarily and then put into practice a financial arrangement for the maintenance of those children which is fair to those children, both parents and the taxpayer, and that the Child Support Agency has failed to meet these objectives, supports the repeal of the rigidly formula-based Child Support Act and its replacement by a system of child support which encourages parental responsibility, enhances work incentives, takes due account of the cost to the taxpayer, includes an effective right of appeal, and is flexible enough to produce a fair outcome for families whatever their circumstances.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to move this motion today, because it is of interest across the House. All right hon. and hon. Members receive frequent correspondence about the Child Support Agency and the Child Support Act 1991, and I am sure that there will be great interest in the debate. Parents should be responsible for the financial and emotional welfare of their children throughout their childhood. That is—indeed, it must be—the starting point of any system of child support.
I shall begin by saying what the debate is not about. It is not about allowing fathers to desert their wives and children to run off with a new lover. It is not about reducing the financial burden on parents by loading more of it on to the taxpayer. However, it is about producing a system of child support that is flexible enough to be fair to parents with care, to absent parents, to the taxpayer, and, most importantly, to the children.
The principle that parents should be responsible for the financial and emotional welfare of their children throughout their childhood is widely shared across all parties in the House and among the public outside. Indeed, it is because the authors of the Child Support Act 1991 claimed that it was based on that principle that it originally won widespread acceptance in the House, from my party as well as the other two parties. We accepted that the objectives stated for the Act were worthy, even if there was much wrong with the detailed implementation.
However, the Act has failed to meet its objectives. It has failed to meet the needs of absent parents and of parents with care, and, above all, it has failed to meet the needs of children. The Child Support Act is beyond repair, and is now as friendless as it is unfriendly.
Let me demonstrate how the CSA fails to fulfil its objectives and give some examples of its failure in practice. In the second half of my speech, I intend to describe the system of child support that we should implement.
The Act's basic failing is that it rests on a rigid formula. It is supposed to treat people living in equal circumstances equally, but any formula will treat equally only those people for whom the circumstances that the formula takes into account are equal. It cannot take into account all the possible circumstances that may arise. As a result, the formula may produce identical settlements for people whose circumstances are very different.
We are all human. We are all individuals. We are all different from one another. What is more, each couple is different; each relationship between two people is unique. No formula-based system can be entirely fair in the myriad different circumstances in which people find themselves. Let me give an example of how the formula used by the CSA has been found wanting.
Let us consider a man still living with his ex-wife, perhaps renting her a spare room in his house, whose children are living with them while the man is paying for most of the family's food and clothing as well as its housing. If the ex-wife appeals to the CSA for maintenance, the agency will ask which is the parent with care. It is the wife, because she receives the child benefit, and she is therefore due maintenance.
What happens if the father argues that, as the children are living in his house, he must at least have shared care? After all, he is paying for their food and clothing. The CSA would say, "No, you do not have shared care, because there is not even one day, let alone 104, on which the child or children leave the mother's house to go to the father's house." How absurd. Yet that is the decision that the CSA makes in such cases.
What happened when the failures of the formula began to show up? The previous Government gradually amended it to take account of more and more of the circumstances that could arise. It became more and more complex, and therefore more and more difficult to administer. Still it did not meet all the circumstances that came to light. Then the Government decided to allow a few departures from it. Even then, only certain laid-down departures were allowed. Still the system throws up unfair results, and still Members of Parliament receive thousands upon thousands of letters detailing the unfairnesses of the Act.
Not least because of the complexities of the formula, the CSA has found it harder and harder to administer the Act. Let me give a further example of what that leads to.
A mother with care in my constituency made an application for maintenance through the CSA. An inquiry form was issued to the absent parent in January 1995. Incomplete information was provided, so no assessment could be made. Eventually, an interim assessment was imposed in March 1997. On receipt of it, the absent parent decided to co-operate, and a new assessment was completed in April 1997. By that time, the two elder sons were no longer eligible to be included in the assessment, so the mother will never receive all the money that she should have had towards the cost of bringing up her children. In that situation, it is nothing less than mad that the budget for the agency is being cut and the number of staff is expected to fall sharply, while the case load is expected to rise by 50 per cent. during the next four years. How can it be expected to cope?

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I have sat on the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for many years, and in the past three

years we have produced three special reports on the CSA that have detailed the terrible afflictions caused when the benefits have not been paid—in some cases, people have had to wait up to three years for that benefit. In all its history, the ombudsman's Committee has never before produced three separate reports on the same Government Department.

Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making such a valid point, which helps to support our case.
I should like to detail some of the other failings of the CSA. In the majority of cases, parents with care on income support stand to gain nothing from the receipt of child maintenance through the CSA, because, for each pound of maintenance received, another pound is deducted from their benefits. Indeed, it can be even worse, because, if the parent with care loses all his or her income support when it is replaced by a maintenance payment, he or she is liable to lose other passported benefits. They may end up even worse off than if they had never applied for maintenance in the first place.
Instead of child assistance, the CSA has created Treasury assistance. It should come as no great surprise to find that thousands of parents with care have reacted to such difficulties by refusing to co-operate with the CSA.

Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are extenuating circumstances to explain why parents with care are not co-operating with the CSA? In the case of one of my constituents, I received a statement of assessment on 13 January, and my constituent received a statement directly on 14 and 15 January. Three different statements were sent in three days. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that parents often do not co-operate because they cannot understand the procedures?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rendel: Judging from the reaction in the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that many of us have received reports of such cases. He is absolutely right, and I am grateful for his intervention.
As a result of such problems, one 16-year-old woman, now four months pregnant, has heard that she will not be able claim any benefits if she does not reveal the name of the father of her child to the CSA. He is a married man, and she is frightened what his wife might do if she found out. If that 16-year-old cannot claim benefits, she—and most importantly, her child—will be the ones who suffer.
It is also important to consider the strain that second families are put under. Very often, the financial position of such families suffers as a result of the maintenance demands placed on one of the parents for his or her first family. Indeed, that now seems to be one of the main causes of family break-up—in this case, the break-up of the second family.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman is making a cogent speech, and is doing the House a great service. When second families are put at risk that is particularly tragic, because they are often trying to make a fist of it for the second time, when first time round was a disaster—in some cases, through no


fault of their own. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a question of principle is at the heart of the problem, because the CSA has the power to overturn court orders? Does he accept that that is essentially wrong, because we have always believed in the ultimate rule of law?

Mr. Rendel: I am grateful for that intervention, which leads me on to another observation I intended to make. A great deal of bitterness is caused by unfair assessment, which all too often causes the absent parents to cut all contact with the children of their first families. That is on the assumption, of course, that there was enough money left to such absent parents from their assessments to enable them to maintain contact in the first place.
Under the current system, families with children are no better off as a result of receiving maintenance. That system's decisions can be financially crippling for second families, and often do nothing to reduce child poverty; and it acts as a clawback mechanism for the Treasury rather than a support system for the child. The CSA has failed in its objectives, and it must go.
I am pleased to see that the Government appear to have moved a considerable distance in our direction. One might have expected them to insist in their amendment that the CSA must remain, and that the Act is a good one—after all, that is the principle on which they fought the general election. However, they seem to be moving toward the position long held by the Liberal Democrats, which is that the Act must go. I hope that their announcement this summer will prove that they have finally come to that conclusion.
What should be done to ensure that the principle that parents should take proper responsibility for their children is carried out in practice? Many parents, if given the right encouragement, will be capable of reaching suitable voluntary agreements for the sake of their children. If enough resources were put into an effective mediation system, the number of such agreements would hugely reduce the need for state interference.
Liberals have believed for more than 100 years that it is the duty of the state to help people to help themselves—not self-help alone, as it is not right that the vulnerable should be expected to fend for themselves; nor is it right that we should simply have big government, as the state should not place unreasonable demands on how people choose to live their own lives. However, it is the duty of the state to mediate in parental disputes, and to ensure the best possible outcome for the children.
For those cases where a voluntary agreement cannot be reached—doubtless there will be many—there should be a system involving some outside body, whether that is a family court, a tribunal or some other body. It would look at the exact family circumstances and come to a decision that was fair to all concerned—one in which all parties felt that they had had a chance to have their say.

The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks that the voluntary principle will work now, when it did not work before the introduction of the CSA? When Labour left office, maintenance payments were being made for about 57 per cent. of families on benefit; but when the CSA took over, that figure had fallen to

23 or 24 per cent. If the voluntary principle was so strong, why did it not work before the CSA, and why would it work if we abolished the CSA?

Mr. Rendel: I am not in any sense advocating that we return to the system used before the CSA. What I said was that many parents are capable of coming to voluntary agreements; they did so before the CSA, and many had perfectly fair and sensible agreements at that time. It is possible that we could encourage an increase in the number of voluntary agreements through an increase in mediation services.
However, we also need a fallback system involving some court or tribunal capable of seeking money from absent parents who are not paying. What was wrong with the old system was that there was little or no power of enforcement. It was not a problem of not having an Act or a formula in place, but one of inadequate enforcement.
In conclusion, we need a system that takes account of the following principles: that there should be fairness in making financial decisions and encouragement of voluntary agreements and of mediation in settling disputes; that children and not only the Treasury should benefit from maintenance payments; that parental responsibility should be encouraged; that the needs of children and their parents should be judged on a case-by-case basis; and that the cost of access by both parents to their child or children should be taken into account.
Such a system offers a humane, not a mathematical, solution, and it can never be governed by an algebraic formula. The Liberal Democrats believe that children deserve no less than that, and that is why the CSA must go.

The Minister for Welfare Reform (Mr. Frank Field): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
believes that all children have the right to the support of both parents wherever they may live, that the previous Government failed to set up an effective system of child support through the Child Support Agency because the CSA was introduced in a hasty and ill thought out manner, that the current child support formula is complex, difficult for parents to understand, and slow, inaccurate and expensive to deliver, that the result is that the CSA has failed to increase the proportion of parents who pay regular maintenance for their children and that 70 per cent. of parents with care are refusing to co-operate with the CSA and 60 per cent. of non-resident parents either pay no maintenance or only pay sporadically, and that the receipt of regular maintenance is an important part of the Government's strategy of tackling child poverty; and welcomes the fact that the Government is looking closely at all areas of the child support system to ensure that it is consistent, fair and efficient and that it expects to bring forward its proposals by the summer".
I and about four other hon. Members in the Chamber this afternoon have sat through every debate on the Child Support Agency since the measure began to wind its way through the House of Commons. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) not only participated in many debates, but initiated them, and was often kind enough to let me participate in them. There was not one debate in the House in which I participated when the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) was not present. I must also mention my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell).
There is, however, a real difference between this afternoon's debate and previous debates that we have had on the subject in the House. The most striking difference lies in the way in which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) has moved the motion this afternoon and has made his case for reform, and in the support that he has received from his hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). That is in stark contrast to the behaviour of Liberal Democrat spokesmen in the previous Parliament, who seemed to over-emphasise the importance of an immediate headline rather than contributing to a debate that might lead to a substantial improvement in the lives of many of our constituents. I welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Newbury not only sought today's debate, but introduced it to the House.
Some hon. Members may not know that the hon. Member for Northavon has a history, and it is relevant to tell the House a little about it. At one stage during the 1979 Parliaments, the House of Commons was faced with an official report from the Government that showed that not only did the trickle-down theory work in this country, but that our poorest constituents were on the receiving end of an economic Niagara falls, and that wealth was being bestowed on them in a way that most of us failed to comprehend.
It was in the Select Committee on Social Security that, with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise), who is not in her seat at present, we sought to test the Government's view. We turned to someone who was then modestly called Professor Webb to help us in our calculations. His abilities were such that he found that, where the Government added things, they should have taken them away. He found that, far from the poor getting richer, the poor had, sadly, become poorer during that Government's stewardship. He therefore comes to these debates in the House of Commons with a proven track record of advancing a cause, and I look forward to hearing him sum up for the Liberal Democrats this afternoon.
The second and equally important distinction in the nature of our debates on the CSA arises largely from the number of Labour Members present. In previous Parliaments, the Labour Front-Bench team was rarely supported by more than two, three or four Back Benchers. Both sides of the House are now showing a real interest in the question how best the CSA should be reformed and how we can do better for those of our constituents whom it affects. I rejoice in the fact that a large number of the suggestions from Opposition Members, and certainly from Labour Members, have been taken into careful account by my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, who is conducting our review of the CSA.
It is important that we do not become too lax during the debate. There is a crunch question that we have to face, and, with all the good will in the world, I do not think that the hon. Member for Newbury faced it as squarely as he might. At some stage, we shall have to choose whether we use the complicated formula we now have or whether we move to something much simpler—possibly a simple tax rate. The hon. Gentleman said that we now had a "rigid formula". The formula is anything but rigid. It has been built up as a result of representations from hon. Members in all parts of the House.
We shall soon have to decide whether to follow the voluntary principle that was suggested by the hon. Member for Newbury, under which people have rules that they easily understand when reaching their own agreements on these matters, although sometimes such agreements might have to be enforced; or the alternative of continuing in the way in which previous Parliaments of which I have been a Member have proceeded, in the belief that the House has the wisdom to legislate for the complex lives of many of our constituents.

Dr. Peter Brand: Does the Minister agree that making a formula more complex does not make it any less rigid? The current formula is incomprehensible to most people, but it is rigidly applied by those who pretend they understand it, and they often give different reasons for reaching a particular result.

Mr. Field: I could not agree more. If we attempt to create a formula that takes into account all the conditions in which our constituents might find themselves, it will be difficult to work. Some might call it flexible, but others would call it inflexible.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Why not use the system of family courts that operates in Australia? They go through financial matters, such as a husband's wage, with the divorcees, so that the divorce is squared up and the children are sorted out. If the husband gets another family, he returns to the family court, not a criminal court, and matters are again sorted out.

Mr. Field: I always pay careful attention to my hon. Friend, because, like me, he attended all the debates in previous Parliaments on this issue. We have a choice. Should we move towards reform for which legislation can be enacted in the foreseeable future, or should we tie reform to a change in the courts system, which would take some time to debate, agree, enact and put into operation? In the light of that operation, we could make changes in the child support arrangements. We must keep an open mind. I merely wish to pose questions and outline the choices.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I declare an interest as a lawyer. Over the first 20 or so years of my practising career, we were able to reach many agreements in divorce cases. The problem was that the courts did not initiate enforcement: the participants had to do that, and that was one of the flaws in the system. Why cannot we go back to such a system? It is far better to get people to agree on payments that they will meet than to try to force them to make payments that they cannot afford.

Mr. Field: My hon. Friend has the opportunity to put his ideas to my noble Friend in the other place. I am sure that he has done that but wishes to record his views so that his constituents know about his participation in our affairs.
I should like to put on record our appreciation of the Child Support Agency staff. It is far too easy for us to pretend that errors are the fault of the staff. It is as if, like Pontius Pilate, we wash ourselves of all responsibility, and, with clean hands, blame the staff for misjudgments. The hon. Member for Newbury had a point to make, so I
do not blame him for standing at one side of the mirror. However, we should also stand at the other side and examine the CSA's record, which is somewhat more impressive than the checklist presented by the hon. Gentleman.
I shall deal with four aspects of the CSA's work, and compare the year before it came into operation with information and projections for the forthcoming financial year, when the case load will have risen from 210,000 to 850,000 families. The maintenance that will be arranged has increased from £140 million to £754 million. Benefit savings will have increased from £313 million to £630 million. Running costs will have halved, with the amount falling from 52p per pound to 27p per pound of maintenance collected.
None of those figures is acceptable, but there is something to be said on behalf of the staff, who do not have the freedom to carry out the job as they wish, but are governed by legislation that was passed by the House. If any criticism is to be made, it has to be directed at us, not at the staff.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I absolutely agree with that. I was one of the people who took part in the original discussions in 1991, and much of the blame cannot be attributed to the staff.
The Minister helpfully informed the debate by giving some of the outcomes. The outcome that astonishes me—and I do not use the word casually—is in his amendment. It says that 70 per cent. of parents with care are refusing to co-operate. I for one have always operated on the assumption that the figure was about half that. It is useful for that information to be put in the Government's amendment, but will the Minister say how that figure comes about, because I am staggered by it?

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman obviously invites me to be honest, and I clearly must be careful at this stage. In our infinite wisdom as politicians, we are slowly going back to the previous system, where we had liable relative officers in local offices. When people who were separated from their partners or husbands came in to claim benefit, they were interviewed by a liable relative officer, who took down the necessary details.
To its credit, the CSA has been undertaking two experiments, as part of which it issues the maintenance assessment form at the point of claiming. However, as part of the second experiment, the CSA helps claimants to fill in that form. If that is done, the staggering figure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) picked up on is reversed: 70 per cent. of claimants participate and wish to do so, as opposed to 70 per cent.—as is true in the rest of the country, where the experiment is not taking place—deciding not to co-operate. Again, that aspect has to be faced.
Under the liable relative officer system, less than 3 per cent. of people claiming benefit because they had been deserted by husbands or partners claimed good cause. The figure is now up to 70 per cent. It is impossible to accept that all those claims are justified. It has gone around on the grapevine that one way in which to avoid the CSA, continue to gain benefit and possibly pick up maintenance is to claim good cause in one's favour.
That whole issue needs to be dealt with immensely sensitively, because some women will claim good cause for all the right reasons—as some of us know from our constituents. What is important is that, when the CSA does not leave a mother six months to decide what her story might be, the ratio that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was quick to pick up on is reversed. I expect that the practice, which is so successful in this experiment, will soon be extended nationwide.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: May I first say that we should express our appreciation to the Minister for his work, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, in focusing on the CSA?
My right hon. Friend referred to the work of the department. I do not criticise the junior staff, but the parliamentary ombudsman could not handle the number of cases of maladministration that were referred to him, and we had to appoint an independent case examiner to judge on issues of maladministration, so that someone in the department is responsible for the mistakes, which could cost the taxpayer money. Although I accept some of my right hon. Friend's points, we should record the fact that there is some maladministration—often of great magnitude—within the CSA.

Mr. Field: It is because we have taken so seriously the point that my hon. Friend puts so well that the Government will, before the summer, introduce proposals for reform that we can then debate. Given the mistakes that we have made in the past, it is important to table the proposals for this House and those elsewhere to debate before we actually decide what the next stage of reform should be. That process may take a few extra months, but I am sure that, if we approach reform in that way, it will significantly increase our chances of success.
On the issue of mistakes, it is worth recording why the CSA has such difficulty in operating more effectively. First, the measure was made retrospective—which might have some significance when we debate the reform proposals later this year. It is the only occasion during a CSA debate when I was staggered by an announcement. Even if, at some stage, we wanted to make the provision retrospective, surely the sensible way to advance would have been to apply it to new cases, and then, when that was successfully done, apply it retrospectively.
Secondly—this underlines the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton—there are problems with administration—or maladministration, as he called it—because of the deadly complications of the formula. I want to give the House a piece of information. If we separate the time spent on working out the original assessment and then on review from the time spent on enforcing the decisions, it becomes clear that more than 90 per cent. of the time of every member of staff is taken up trying to grapple with the formula, either to compute the original assessment or to check what it should be at every new stage. That might suggest that there is a case for seriously considering how the formula should be reformed.
Some of my hon. Friends who are present today have previously asked how departures can be enforced. It is clear from what I have said that there is a limited number of staff to enforce any changes, because so much time is spent on the original calculations. Even worse, under the


current formula, we could not move to a casework system that would enable one CSA officer to deal with a case. The formula and its ramifications are so complicated that it is impossible, with our resources, to train a member of staff so that he can be on top of the whole of the portfolio.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister is properly and conscientiously sharing his concerns with us. I want to pursue a point raised by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). Is the Minister considering a reassessment of the considerations that enter into play, especially the life style of the second family or families? I shall give a simple example—we could all give hundreds.
I think that the public would find it difficult to accept that it is fair that a constituent and his second wife, who are living in a one-bedroomed flat on straitened means, are asked to pay £250 a week, when the previous wife is living in a five-bedroomed, three-bathroomed, listed building with horses, stables, paddocks and so on, entirely supported by an extremely affluent second partner. Such cases discredit the system and the willingness of people to participate. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that he shares our view that we must reappraise that balance of considerations.

Mr. Field: I certainly do share it. I am hoping that, when we debate the reform package, the House will be able to adopt a reform or formula—or however we choose to do it—so that most staff time is spent trying to enforce agreements that have been made and helping people to collect information, rather than to digest the forms that we inflict upon them.
I end by briefly listing for the House the reform objectives on which I hope that we can agree. I do not want the list to be conclusive, and I hope that today's debate will add to the list. Moreover—as the process is on-going, and will not finish merely because this debate will end at 7 pm—I hope also that people will feel free to approach and to share their ideas with either me, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), or my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, so that we are clear about our objectives as we devise the means of achieving them.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): I am grateful for the support that the Minister is giving to our motion. In summing up, will he deal with the biggest single injustice that our constituents undoubtedly feel—it has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House—which is that there is no opportunity to be heard? There is no hearing, and no opportunity to put the case or to compare the evidence. That is the biggest single fault in the current system.

Mr. Field: I shall not deal with it in my summing up, but I shall certainly make careful note of it, so that it is part of our internal discussions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also will try to pursue the matter.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned the support that I am giving to his motion, I should sound a slight note of warning. I had hoped that I was participating in building a consensus across the

House on how we should proceed—given that quite a few hon. Members should be standing here in sackcloth and ashes for our past errors and for the damage that we have inflicted on some of our constituents' lives.
Although there is a natural tendency for a minority party to say that all hon. Members are bending before its will, it is important in the longer run—not only on this issue but on all the other issues that the Government will be addressing shortly—that the House feels that the reform programme is a shared one, rather than one that belongs to any one sect or party.
As I said, I want to conclude by examining the objectives for reform. It is quite clear from the comments of the hon. Member for Newbury—as I hope that it will be from the comments of every speaker in this debate—that hon. Members are as committed to the principle enshrined in the CSA as we have ever been: a child's right to be supported—which is our first aim—is crucial. Conversely, the second objective of our reform programme is to achieve a reverse and decline in the number of families on benefit who lack regular maintenance payments.
Thirdly—by achieving our second objective—we will be laying the basis, mostly for mothers but occasionally for fathers, to make greater choices in how they live their lives and in the mix that they will have from benefit and from benefit and work. That choice can be available only if adequate and regular maintenance payments are made.
Fourthly—although I listed it as first when I was in opposition, because I had always thought that it was overlooked—we have a responsibility to taxpayers. Although we want our reforms to be successful, for all the reasons I have just given, the cost of supporting separated families on benefit was approaching 5p on the standard rate of tax. Taxpayers also have to be taken into account in considering our reforms. The pleas on effectiveness of the system that we heard in interventions in this debate will help in achieving that objective.
The fifth objective that I hope our reforms will achieve is to move up the political agenda—quietly and without dispute—the entire matter of access. For far too long, the agreement has been that no problems will be made about maintenance, and that the benefit cheque will continue to arrive, but the quid pro quo is that fathers should not see their children.
Of course, one does not make access dependent on maintenance—indeed, there will be some cases in which the court will have to decide, given the record of some of those fathers and, very occasionally, some of those mothers—but, when we talk about the needs of children, we are talking not only about their financial needs, but about the full responsibility that parents have for their children. Parents sometimes tell me that it is all very well to say that, but that the children get deeply distressed when they see their father. That is the price that children have to pay for the break-up of a marriage or a relationship.
At the end of the day, one has to consider whether it is right to spare children some of the grief, as one parent comes and goes in their lives, or whether the children should never see the absent parent, and never have that parent ask how they are doing at school or bring them a Christmas or birthday present. Surely we need to widen the debate so that it deals not only with finances, although they are important, but with the full responsibility that parents should have for their children.
Finally, I hope that one of the objectives of the reform is that we have a system that the staff can understand.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome the debate. The sensitivities and difficulties aroused by the nature of the subject have been reflected in the thoughtful speeches and interventions that we have heard so far and by the fact that this is one of the rare occasions when the House is quiet, because hon. Members genuinely want to listen to the debate rather than score party political points by yah-hooing across the Chamber. That is refreshing, and I trust that the rest of the contributions will be as intelligent and of such a high calibre.
The motion restates the principles that lie at the very heart of the Child Support Agency. The fundamental principle is that both parents should be responsible for their children. Of course, that principle goes back to the beginning of the process that led to the establishment of the CSA through the Child Support Act 1991. It is vital that we focus on the various principles behind the CSA, principles on which all parties are agreed. We must consider how best to translate them into an effective working of the CSA.
The Liberal Democrats' motion has, to a certain extent, missed the point of the CSA. It proposes to encourage parents to reach an amicable agreement when they split up. Where that is possible, I entirely agree that that should be the case. In a perfect world, there should be a voluntary agreement in all divorce settlements or when partners split up. However, that is not the purpose of the CSA as, sadly, this is not a perfect world and, far too often—in fact, I suspect, possibly in a majority of cases—there cannot be a voluntary agreement.
When there is a divorce, when partners split up, or even when there is no relationship in the sense that we usually use that term, but when a child has been born as the result of an incident—that is rather indelicate, but I am not sure of the correct parliamentary term—there is going to be great difficulty in getting the various parties to reach an agreement that is acceptable to all. The situation is exacerbated when there are children involved and especially when one parent wants to keep away from the other. The CSA was set up to tackle such difficulties.
In the latter half of this century, there have been significant changes in the society in which we live. The traditional family unit and the finality of marriage have been eroded. Thus there has been a phenomenal increase in the number of marriages that end in divorce. However, a fact that is more important to the debate is the great increase in the number of children who are born outside marriage and the number of lone mothers who have been abandoned by the father of their child, or, less commonly, fathers who have been abandoned by the mother of their child. One of the fundamental purposes of the CSA was to safeguard the well-being of children in those circumstances.
Too many fathers simply abandon their children, adding to the number of lone mothers and turning away from their responsibilities. The lone mothers then become

dependent on the state for benefit, when the fathers should be making a financial contribution to the upkeep of their children. The CSA was created to address that problem and to provide a universal system of establishing child maintenance so that, whoever the absent parent was and whatever his or her means, there would be a consistent system.
Before the Child Support Act 1991, there were a great many problems in the way in which maintenance was established. In many cases, no maintenance was paid. By the end of the old system, 75 per cent. of lone parents were not receiving regular child support for their children. The system of child maintenance was clearly not working. It was fragmented; not only did it involve several different levels of courts, but it often worked in conjunction with offices of the Department of Social Security.
The system was often too slow in dealing with cases and it was judged to have been inconsistent. It was not possible to predict with any certainty what the absent parent's liability might be, as it was down to each court to establish the level of child maintenance. Therefore, someone in one part of the country earning £150 per week could be forced to pay £50 in maintenance, whereas someone on the other side of the country on the same income could be paying only £5 a week. Such discrepancies were unacceptable and the CSA was set up to address the problems of inconsistency.
As is recognised by the Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and, no doubt, hon. Members who will speak in the debate, the CSA had a difficult start. It was dealing with people who were often at a crisis point in their lives, when decisions were made on the basis of emotion rather than reason. There were various problems. Many of those who had been married found that the CSA was focusing on them when they were prepared to pay and—in most cases erroneously—felt that irresponsible fathers were being allowed to escape scot-free.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: That is exactly what happened. When the CSA was first set up, it went for the fathers it could get. It did not go for the fathers it could not get, because the money that it could take off the fathers was needed to run the agency. The previous Government set up the CSA with no money. It had to find some, so it had to pick up the fathers it could find.

Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I take issue with part of what he said. Of course, when the CSA started, it took up the cases of fathers who were seeking to make arrangements. It also sought to track down absent parents who were trying to evade their responsibilities. It is more difficult to find such parents and encourage them to take part in the process. Of course there was an impression, particularly among fathers who were co-operating, that the CSA was going for the easy target, but I do not believe that the facts sustain that argument.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an anomaly when the absent parent is making a contribution to the parent with care who has entered a new relationship? The absent parent still has to pay for the parent with care when she has another husband. Many people criticise that evil.

Mr. Burns: I fully understand and appreciate that point. From my constituency cases, I know of the deep


resentment that such a situation can cause. The Minister said that the issue was under review. I shall come back to it in a wider context. The principle of what the hon. Gentleman has said is right. A great deal of resentment has been caused because many people feel that the situation is unfair, for the reasons that he outlined.
The Child Support Agency had a difficult start. There were problems with the different treatment given to those who co-operated and absent fathers. Many people also found that the formula was too rigid and did not take individual circumstances sufficiently into consideration.
The initial problems that became apparent were addressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) in the Child Support Act 1995, which introduced a raft of new measures to improve the functioning of the CSA. Provisions were also made in regulations to ensure that absent parents were not paying more than they could afford. A ceiling of 30 per cent. of net income was introduced for assessments. In addition, a special allowance was made for travel-to-work costs for absent parents who lived more than 15 miles from their workplace. Further allowance was made for the housing of a new partner or stepchildren. The 1995 Act introduced new measures to enable departure from the formula, to take into consideration special circumstances that were not included in the calculations.
The changes dealt with many of the problems that had manifested themselves in the first years of the agency's operation.

Ms Gisela Stuart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 1995 Act failed to address one of the basic flaws, because there was no element of seeking consensus? Without consensus, people will not participate. The system is perceived as mechanical.

Mr. Burns: In an ideal world, consensus is the best way forward, but it was impossible to reach consensus in too many cases under the old system, which was failing because people felt that they could avoid their financial responsibilities. That does not encourage consensus. When a statutory body was being set up and the system was being put on a more consistent statutory basis, it would have been difficult to expect consensus, particularly in the early years after such a dramatic change in the system for child maintenance calculations.
Although the 1995 Act improved the technicalities of the CSA, there was still the problem of the loss of confidence in the agency. Before developing that theme, I join the Minister in paying tribute to the staff of the CSA, who do tremendous work under tremendous pressure for very little thanks. It is too easy constantly to criticise the staff and forget their day-to-day work.
The loss of confidence in the agency because of its initial problems was compounded by opposition to it in certain sectors of the community. As the breakdown of a relationship is not unnaturally very traumatic, delicate and difficult, it is inevitable, and only human nature, that people want to be able to lash out at someone or something. I am in no way criticising anyone; such a desire is human nature and a natural reaction.
There was a further problem, which still needs to looked into. If a couple are unmarried and the mother does not name the father of the child, she can simply claim benefit and the father has to pay nothing. To a great

extent, that led to the negative perception of the CSA as a body that did not meet the aims and aspirations of its establishment.
That illustrates how child maintenance will often be an extremely difficult issue to resolve further. It arises at a difficult point in people's lives. That makes it paramount to approach the issue with great delicacy and sensitivity. It is important that the CSA's principles are not only maintained but put into practice in the most effective way and, most important, are the best possible for the children, who are involved at a very difficult time in everybody's lives.
Improvements have been made, but there is room for more, as the Minister said. The agency's working can be improved by focusing on administration—making it more streamlined, making the assessment process quicker and making the appeals system more effective. The administration also needs to be improved in the pursuit of absent parents who are unwilling to pay.
Beyond that, more profound questions can be asked of the CSA, which the motion raises. The trend towards the increase of family breakdown is an important factor in the society in which we live. The CSA—and other approaches to the subject of child maintenance—can be a powerful tool in controlling the way in which society behaves. It can be used to provide behavioural incentives, which can in turn be used to strengthen not only parental responsibility but the very structure of the family.
The CSA formula was introduced to guarantee consistency in the assessment of maintenance, and it was originally intended to have enough flexibility to manage all situations. However, given opposition to it, there are clearly some problems with the formula and the way in which the system operates, which must be taken into account. I am sure that the Minister will not overlook that during the next few months, before he publishes the findings of the review.
The motion and Labour's amendment take us no further in the debate. I understand that that need not necessarily be expected from the Government at this point in the proceedings, because they are carrying out a review. However, much of the Liberal Democrat motion restates the principles. I should have liked more fleshing out of ideas on how to replace the CSA. I think that the hon. Member for Newbury described a special court system. It is well and good to bandy around phrases, but one needs to know exactly how such a system would work and to be able to pinpoint how it would improve the present system.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burns: No, I want to finish.
One of the luxuries of opposition is that we, too, can afford to review our policies. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) and other colleagues and I have no wish to be ostriches with our heads in the sand. We are in the process of reviewing the Child Support Agency, which we set up, in an attempt to come up with ideas for improving a system of child maintenance that protects the taxpayer, the parent looking after the child, and the child itself.
I was concerned to read a story on the front page of The Sunday Times two or three weeks ago suggesting that the decision had been taken to abolish the CSA. Although the


Government dismissed the report as untrue, I heard the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) on the "Today" programme this morning saying that there had been subsequent developments. He went on to outline how the Government have changed their mind yet again. I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will be able to tell us whether any decisions have been taken—

Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman must be joking.

Mr. Burns: I am being tempted into my old ways. The Minister's point is that decisions cannot be taken while a review is still in progress—logically that is right. I will not tread on any toes this evening, except to say that decisions on welfare reform have been taken in recent months even though that review has not been concluded either.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: This is a vital debate on a vital issue. If, over the past two decades, Britain has become a more insecure society—there are many reasons for that, not least economic ones—what has been happening to our families has certainly been a major contributory factor, and if our children have become poorer, the same factor, among others, lies behind that increased poverty.
It is easy to attack the CSA; easy, as constituency Members, to champion the cause of those who have been maltreated. It is much more difficult to design and champion a reform that works and ensures that both parents pay for their children. Sometimes it is easier for the House of Commons to champion the men who have been maltreated than to speak up for the children and mothers who have been maltreated by an inadequate system of child maintenance down the centuries. Sometimes we should listen not just to the victims of maladministration who come to our surgeries but to the muted voices of the children and mothers who have never received any maintenance.
There have of course always been children living with just one parent—often because of the death of a father. Today a new social revolution is under way, meaning that a great many children will spend all or some of their childhood living with just one parent, usually, although not always, the mother. The other parent—the so-called absent parent—is still the parent of the child, however. The Liberal Democrat spokesman talked of the reluctance of a mother to name the father. We can help the argument along by including the right of the child to know who both parents are.
Those changes, for example divorce, have affected men and women, but they impinge most on children. Although we have to study the relationships between the genders, let us focus firmly on children, as the Minister did.
The divorce rate has increased dramatically; there are now about 13.1 divorces per 1,000 married couples in England and Wales. In 1966, the figure was just 3.2 per 1,000. Most parents who divorce have children under 16—currently about 56 per cent. The risk of a new-born child's mum and dad divorcing before he or she reaches 16 is 1:4 and every year, 160,000 children under 16 witness the divorce of their parents.
In addition, more of our children are born outside wedlock—about 36 per cent., which is more than one third. We must analyse carefully what is happening. I think that most of those children are born to cohabiting parents. When we study the data on single mothers, we have to realise that they are usually the product of a cohabitation breakdown, not merely a single mother who has never lived with the father of her child. Of course, the circumstances of conception are such that the father might disappear, so a number of children only ever live with the mother.
We are dealing with complex circumstances, which are made more complex by the factors about which we have heard. People remarry or, to use an ugly expression, re-partner. Many families are second or step-families and therefore many men and some women have a responsibility for two sets of children. However, they have that responsibility and, even in our consumer society, it is simply not on for people to give up one responsibility as they take on a new one.
About 1.7 million of our children now live in one-parent families—the figure was just 600,000 in 1971. Most of those families, although not all, are on income support. The group most likely to be on income support are children living with single rather than divorced or separated mothers.
The reform agenda concerns the Child Support Agency and some wider social policy issues. When the Government produce their reform agenda, I hope that there will be a maintenance disregard. If it is truly a child support policy, we cannot tell children and their mothers—the parents with care—that they have a duty to co-operate with the CSA, which may cause them some problems, but that if they are on income support, they will not get an extra penny in maintenance. Wiser Governments than previous Governments here—I was about to say than our own, but I did not mean that—in different parts of the world, have recognised the importance of the disregard; the Australian example comes to mind. The taxpayer must be taken into consideration because taxpayers are not some theoretical construct, but include many two-parent families on quite low wages who are being asked to contribute to the community chest, because some fathers will not pay for their own children. Let us face it: that is what we are talking about. Therefore, it is right and proper that the mother and child should benefit, too, through a maintenance disregard.
Secondly, we must have a simpler formula, and we have come to recognise that. However, that will mean rougher justice and I predict that those who are calling for a simpler formula will say in a few years' time that it is not merely simple but crude and does not take account of the complexities of their constituents' cases. It will be rougher justice, but it is worth going for.
Thirdly, we need a CSA with a human face. Many of our constituents complain that they can never talk to the same official twice. Every person dealing with the CSA, whether the mother or the father, should be able to talk to a named official—a Mr. or Ms Brown—about their case. They may also have to talk to a colleague, but people have a right to deal with a human being at the end of the telephone.
Fourthly, we have to pursue the hard targets. Understandably, people in full-time employment—in the public or civil service or with a big company—are rightly


pursued, but they get angry when they know of other people who easily evade the system. One constituent told me that she knew exactly where her former husband, who should have been paying maintenance, was. The CSA simply wrote to the address and someone, presumably the father, returned the letter with "Not known at this address" written on it. The CSA then told the mother—and me as her Member of Parliament—that he was not known at that address. We could be more rigorous than that and we need some clever and tough-minded detective work in pursuit of the hard targets. When that work results in a father being forced to pay maintenance and complaining to his Member of Parliament, let us be on the side of the mother of the child and not always on his side.
If we are to relate the policy to our ideas about welfare to work and if we are to tell mothers that they should think about their careers, training and all the rest, we must consider whether we can guarantee maintenance for the mother leaving income support and going into work. If a mother can manage to go into work and wants to do so, having calculated the cost of child care, but is banking on the £30 of child maintenance, there is no point in her starting work if two weeks later the father reneges on the deal for several weeks or for ever. It is a difficult question, but I urge Ministers to consider whether they could guarantee that maintenance, so that the responsibility for chasing it is the Government's and the risks are not all shouldered by the mother.
I recognise that this is a sensitive area—the Minister was right to remind the House of that, because many mothers are the victims of violence. Nevertheless, there is some sense in bringing closer together the assessment of income support for the mother and child and the CSA process. At the moment, someone may apply for income support and the CSA process may come into operation only some weeks or months later. If we are to mean it when we talk the language of rights and responsibilities, perhaps we should explain right from the start to the parent seeking income support that there is an entitlement but also an obligation to say who the father is and that we shall handle it as sensitively as possible. Right from the start, it should be clear that the income of that family is partly the responsibility of the father and not merely that of the taxpayer. I appreciate the sensitivities involved, but they should not enable the most irresponsible and thuggish men in our society to be the ones who never pay for their children. There is a real ethical dilemma there for us.
Although the reform agenda is largely about the CSA, hon. Members would be foolish not to consider some of the wider issues, which have been touched upon. We are not just living in a society in which most children—I am sure that it is most in these circumstances—receive no maintenance from their father. We are also talking about the most fraught and difficult emotional circumstances, when a proportion of the children concerned—some research suggests that it might be about a quarter-no longer have any contact with their father following the breakdown of their parents' relationship.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: That is an interesting point. Is not one of the greatest problems the fact that sometimes children are used as pawns—I hope that Ministers will consider this in their review—in the sense that a mother may withdraw contact with them from the father, who is forced to pay

more maintenance by the CSA and who will be angry and concerned that he cannot have access to his children? That is a glaring hole and it needs to be considered, as it is not all one way.

Mr. Wicks: Sadly, adults do not behave like adults in such circumstances, and children are pawns in the game. The other day, I read in a newspaper of a case in which the child said, "Mummy wants me to hate daddy and daddy wants me to hate mummy." Adults can behave very badly.
I am not saying that, to balance access with maintenance, there should be one court; it is right and proper that there should be two systems. If the father has a history of violence, a court may say that he should not have access to the children for a period, but that he should pay maintenance. I understand why a father would be angry about such a settlement but, in terms of family law and social policy, that is sometimes right.
Over the past 10 years, Governments have focused in cases of family breakdown on cash—maintenance—but we should also focus on care. The more difficult and important issue is how, when there is family breakdown and fracture, we enable children wherever possible to be brought up by both their mother and father, which is not only a question of maintenance.
We should also take into account family law and court practice. Other hon. Members will have heard constituents, often the fathers, saying, "There's a court order that I should see my child every week, but when I go to the house the child is not there or the mother will not let me in." They are advised, "You can go back to court, but it will cost you several hundred pounds." We should consider family law issues in relation to the social policy of child maintenance.
We must ask about causation. There is no easy agenda, but I do not believe that Britain has to be top of the European divorce league. We should not have to spend £4 billion to meet the public costs of divorce while we are spending so little on guidance and counselling for couples who face difficulties. I am not saying that the divorce rate can easily be reduced, but I refuse to believe that it has to be so high. Preventive medicine is better than conventional medicine, and Ministers should consider prevention in this area. That has implications for our schools and how we teach our children about relationships, their lives, confidence and sex. Why, every year, do 100,000 teenagers conceive unplanned and unwanted babies, which leads to a horrifically high abortion rate and the creation of a large number of fragile families? We must not forget the preventive agenda.
Politics is a macho pursuit, so we often talk more about the strong economy than about the strong family but, over the past decade or so, family insecurities have become as important as economic insecurities in creating poverty and disadvantage for families and society. We need to strike the right balance between rights and duties.
Becoming a mother or father should bring not only rights—to child benefit, decent education and decent health care—but duties. We must change the climate, and tell people that, when they become mothers or fathers, they have a duty in all circumstances to care for and maintain their children. That is an obvious and almost trite point, but increasingly in recent years—for reasons on which we can agree or disagree—many parents,


usually fathers, have taken on the irresponsible role of not providing for their children. We face a big battle, and I hope that the House is united in trying to win the fight.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: It is always a privilege and pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks). His record on this matter is well known and his speeches always repay careful study. I agree with him on some of the issues that he raised, but I hope that he will join me and other Liberal Democrats in regretting the fact that the rate of unwanted teenage pregnancies was dropped as a "Health of the Nation" target in the recent Green Paper. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to put some quiet pressure on his ministerial colleagues, I shall certainly join him, as that was a retrograde step in child support policy.
I pay tribute to the Minister for Welfare Reform. He had a distinguished career during the previous Parliament as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, and I hope that he does not now feel that the many hours that he spent chairing the Committee's investigations into the Child Support Agency were wasted. The amendments that he tabled were not always successful because of the Conservative majority against him—I now know how he felt, as I am totally friendless on the new Select Committee. The work that he did then was valuable, and I am sure that when my colleagues on the new Select Committee turn their attention to the CSA, they will want to act as constructively as he did in working with the Government of the day, accepting the principle behind the agency and suggesting improvements to its operation.
This debate on the CSA has been less strident than some of the ones I remember. The Minister has, for the first time that I can remember, seduced the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—if I had known that he would not be here now, I would have said this earlier—into being constructive.
It is important that the House responds to the depth of the problems caused by the Child Support Act 1991. Mea culpa—like the Minister, I was one of the guilty people who were then Members of Parliament, although, in retrospect, I think that we faced mission impossible. Like all hon. Members, I see the results of the Act in my weekly surgery. Last Friday, a postman from Duns, who earns £190 a week, showed me a demand note for £22,000. Such debts are unrealistic and will have to be written off. The interim assessments act as a shock tactic, but the psychology has completely failed and I am not surprised at some of the new non-compliance rates.
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said when he eloquently introduced our motion. The system is too complex and too rigidly applied. The speed at which the 1991 legislation was implemented meant that it would almost inevitably fail. I also agree with the hon. Member for Croydon, North. If the new system is to have any chance of success, it is most important that it deals—and is seen to be dealing—squarely with the "can pay, won't pay" merchants.
I shall, perhaps rather bravely, make some personal suggestions that we should consider in what I assume, from what the Minister said, will be a Green Paper—the

consultation will flow after publication. The arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and in the motion are valid and must be addressed during the consultation.
I doubt that we shall persuade the Government to go as far as we want, so I shall run with what they say rather than with our more radical suggestions. I believe that given that the Government are set on creating a new system that uses a flat-rate formula, it must have two characteristics. First, the flat-rate system must be almost moronically simple—it must be transparent, so that everyone can understand it. Secondly, the rate must be set relatively low. If we introduce both those elements, we can then say that there should be no exemptions whatever.
I suggest that the liability should be set at 3 per cent. of earnings—it makes no difference whether it is net or gross—for the first child and 7 per cent. of earnings top-sliced for the second child, with no exemptions. That would indeed be rough justice, but it could be implemented.

Dr. Brand: I wish to ask my hon. Friend for a definition of "moronically simple". If by that he means something that I can understand, I would accept such a system, because that would meet the definition. The present system certainly does not.

Mr. Kirkwood: My hon. Friend is only a general practitioner, but I think that he might have no problem with a 3 per cent. and 7 per cent. system.
It is impossible for the CSA to continue to operate by trying to mirror the complex work that the Inland Revenue does in terms of working out weekly what people are due. We must carefully consider the period of assessment. I cannot understand why people are not assessed one year in arrears. The CSA could then take account of Inland Revenue figures and P60s, and stop having to alter assessments to include overtime changes, part-time working and short-time working. It should consider people's income from the previous year and base the 3 per cent. or 7 per cent. for one, two or more children on that figure with no exemptions. If we did that, the system would work.
We must look specifically at the position of the self-employed, because it is currently a complete nightmare. The system seems to perm any number from several, and people receive letters from the CSA on consecutive days which give different figures. The circumstances of some small businesses run by the self-employed are incapable of fair, consistent or coherent assessment under the present regulations and the Green Paper must contain a special section on the self-employed.
On the subject of retrospection, we must learn the lesson of the mistakes that we made last time, and the Minister was right to point that out. Some of us were perplexed at the time, but we did not realise how significant the degree of indirect retrospection was. We must have a cut-off date. I do not care what it is, but it must be clear and the new system must operate from that date, with no going back. We must look forward. An axe must fall and the new process must start on that date. That does not mean that people with assessed liabilities should get off scot-free. The poll tax has not set a good precedent for much but, as with local authorities and the poll tax, the CSA should be given a residual power under the new


system to define outstanding arrears and assign the debt to a debt collection agency. Even if the amount assigned were less than the actual amount outstanding, some money would be collected from the defaulters. In that way, those who had played the game and paid their money would not feel that they had been done down twice. The system must deal with the "can pay, won't pay" merchants, because they will always be with us.
I shall not dwell on the issue of disregards, but the hon. Member for Croydon, North is right on the subject. The Select Committee recently visited Wisconsin, which has effectively no unemployment and a 100 per cent. pass-through system, as it is called. Non-custodial parents are happy to make payments that go straight to benefit their children and our new system must have a similar element. We must also encourage custodial parents—usually women-to get involved in the process, even if we have to pay them bonuses instead of penalising them if they do not get involved. I am more convinced of that than ever now that I have read the Government's amendment. I assume that the 70 per cent. figure for non-co-operation is derived from the CSA report. Some 30 per cent. of custodial parents fall into a middle category, neither totally complying nor totally non-complying. That big chunk of 30 per cent. needs to be worked on, preferably with carrots rather than sticks. We have not had enough carrots in the past.
The time before 2000 when the new, rebadged CSA will be introduced is essential to try to minimise the damage of the current system. The CSA was protected from some of the worst effects of the change programme in the past, and the previous Government rightly added extra civil servants to its numbers to prevent it from grinding to a halt. However, I am now worried that the change programme will affect the CSA badly. It is now taking its share of the cuts, which causes great concern about the next 18 months to two years. The departmental spending review will be published at about the same time as the Green Paper and I hope that we can count on Ministers to fight the case for the proper staffing of the CSA so that it can respond to our constituents' needs. Our constituents are driven crazy with frustration because they cannot get through on the telephone. It is bad enough that they have to speak to different members of staff every time, but it is much worse if they cannot get through at all.
I wish to enter the competition set by Baroness Hollis, who has done valuable work on the issue of the CSA. She has asked for names for the new body that will replace the CSA. I claim the bottle of champagne by suggesting that the new name should be the "Liable Relatives Unit".

Ms Julia Drown: I wish to add to the comments that I made in the useful debate that we had on 20 June 1997. I am glad that the review of the CSA is progressing, and I am pleased that the Labour Government have already taken steps to improve the efficiency of the agency and to make it more responsive. I also wish to add my thanks to those members of staff who have courteously replied to the many letters that I have sent to them. However, there is a lot still to do. Response times to telephone calls and letters are still too long. One of my constituents told me on Friday about trying to telephone the CSA more than 40 times last week, but not getting through once. That is not good enough.
I urge the Government to finish the review as soon as possible. South Swindon wants a new start for the CSA now. I am glad that the Government's amendment states that the report will be out by the summer. I urge the review to produce rules that are simple to understand, but that allow some flexibility. No two families' circumstances are identical. Some hon. Members have argued in this debate that the answer is one simple, rigid formula—for example, £x per week per child or y per cent. of the parent's income. A simple formula is attractive, but rigidly applied, it would bring rough justice. The cases that I have seen raise concerns about the rigid application of any formula, if fairness and common sense are to be part of the new system. I know of parents who exchanged tens of thousands of pounds when they separated, yet the CSA fails to take that into account. Common sense would justify a departure in such cases from even the simple formulae described to allow for such large transfers of money.
Support for the children involved and for both parents must be part of the process. For the constituents whom I see—and I recognise that I see those for whom the CSA has failed—support is entirely lacking. The only visible support comes from the title of the agency, which has become sadly ironic. I urge the Government to recognise in the review that not only the rules, but the agency itself need changing. Its history is so rotten that amending the system will not inspire confidence from those it has let down. We need a fresh start, new rules and new attitudes which are flexible and supportive of parents. It is also paramount that we keep the interests of children at heart.
I mentioned attitudes. The language used by the CSA is an important part of that. It uses the term "absent parent", which is neither constructive nor accurate in respect of many of the parents whom I meet. One of my constituents is a father whose son is the most important thing in his life. He does not live with his son, but spends as long as his contact time allows with him and supports him in every way that he can, yet the CSA describes him as an absent parent. The term gives neither that man nor many of my other constituents the respect that they deserve. It does not convey to their children what I hope we as a society want to convey. I am delighted that the Government's amendment uses the term "non-resident parent". I congratulate the Government on that change of language and ask that it be used by the CSA throughout its work.
On attitudes, the public and politicians sometimes say that all the CSA's problems are due to mean fathers who take no responsibility for their children. I recognise that roughly one third of non-resident parents do not comply at all with assessments and that a further third comply only partially. I accept that that proves that the system is failing. There are irresponsible fathers, but that is not the whole story. They are not the source of all the CSA's problems. Most fathers whom I meet are willing to co-operate and want to support their children, but are confused by the agency's complex rules, bled dry by their unreasonableness and inflexibility and deeply offended by being described as absent parents. I urge those discussing the agency's problems to put blame where it is due, but not to generalise it by including those who are not guilty.
I await the Government's review with eagerness. I urge them to make a fresh start with a simple new formula, but to accept that some flexibility is needed because no two individuals' circumstances are the same. My constituents


want a change in attitudes and language. We need an improvement in responsiveness so that people stuck in the system can get the answers that they need. Rather than failing increasing numbers of children and parents, a new system needs to ensure that the interests of children are paramount.

Mr. Howard Flight: There seems to be near-unanimity in the House about the problems of the Child Support Agency, and about what may need to be done. As a new Member, I am shocked and upset by the cases that I have got caught up with. They illustrate a wide variety of problems, often including the sort of situation to which the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) referred.
Too often, fathers who are willing to pay and who have been paying have become easy targets. They get caught up in the mill. One also finds the reverse situation, where mothers who are supposed to be paying have got caught in the mill. I had a case where a mother had virtually lost her job, quite unjustly, as a result of administrative inconvenience.
Case officers are essential. I fear that they may be impossibly expensive, but at present, as other hon. Members have said, any difficult case involves different people, telephones going unanswered, and a complete administrative mess. That is a waste of time. I like the idea that, as the Inland Revenue has the records, and as its records are supposed to get better as self-assessment settles down, it might end up as the body that dispenses money when certain other reforms have come through. The revised CSA may have more of a counselling job, trying to decide under simplified rules what is fair, and sorting out the mess from the past.
I have found many instances of what I would call anti-men attitudes. That is probably changing, and I do not wish to say it tritely, but the culture that has existed since the CSA was set up has not been completely fair to one side or the other. In particular, a case in which a wife takes the children and leaves her husband, and the husband is denied access, is very different morally from the reverse situation, or from cases of real father irresponsibility.
I broadly agree with the Government's suggestions that we need something simple to avoid getting into the sort of minefield that exists now, but I agree with the hon. Member for South Swindon that cases vary enormously. Returning to my case officer point, there is a need to assess situations on their merits, as lawyers do in working out divorce settlements.
In my experience, the self-employed present almost impossible problems, and not only in respect of pursuing fathers who are shirking paying up. I have encountered tragic cases of near-suicide when self-employed people have been driven to give up work or been assessed ridiculously. I hope that the Inland Revenue may be the key to the solution once the discipline of self-assessment becomes established.
I echo the sympathy for CSA officers. They must be utterly fed up with Members of Parliament writing furious letters about constituents who have been left in a terrible way by the CSA. I agree that its replies are remarkably

courteous and detailed. I sometimes think that, if the same efficiency had been displayed in the first place, some of the problems might not have arisen.
It is too early to judge the outcome of the review. Like my colleagues, I was surprised to read reports that a Minister in the other House had decided to abolish the CSA. Such a decision cannot be made without knowing how we are going to deal with the CSA's problems. There should be more focus on what the courts can offer. They cannot alone solve the problem of making recalcitrant parents pay up or of collecting the money, but the fact that the majority of cases now voluntarily go to the courts for settlement rather than to the CSA suggests that the old mechanism of the courts is better.
I echo the wish to get a move on. I appreciate that it is difficult territory, but all hon. Members know of heart-rending cases that one fears must be unnecessary. I hope that we can, as everyone wants, speedily reach a collective decision on major reforms and simplifications. As to whether that involves a new body altogether or a major radical reform of the existing body, I have no instant answer, but change is necessary, and communication is at the heart of any continuing effective role that a body such as the CSA should have.

Mr. James Plaskitt: I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on such an important issue, and the serious and constructive tone in which it is being conducted.
Child Support Agency cases quickly emerged as a major element of my work as a newly elected Member. I am sure that that is also the experience of all recently elected colleagues. In the first few months of being in office, I collected no fewer than 50 serious and complex CSA cases. I could quickly come to the conclusion that there is something badly amiss with the CSA as it currently works.
I believe that we agree that the principle of ensuring that absent parents meet their responsibilities cannot be faulted, but it has also become clear that, in many instances, the CSA does not help to realise that outcome. In some cases, its intervention has frustrated an agreement that might otherwise have emerged.
In many respects, the basic approach adopted by the CSA is flawed. It shows all the signs of being, in the first instance, the product of some rushed decisions and perhaps inadequate research.
Despite all the difficulties and the reports of non-co-operation that we sometimes receive at our surgeries, I doubt that the problems are the fault of the staff who work in CSA offices. Most do their best in impossible circumstances. To start with, they have had to cope with a flawed structure, a difficulty now compounded by the heavy work load with which many are trying to wrestle, and the inadequate resources that support them. It has been a chilling experience to see month after month at my surgery so many individuals who have been placed under intolerable stress as a result of having to deal, with the CSA.
From my experience, many former partners are willing to accept their shared responsibilities, and would be able to reach a mutually agreed arrangement, but the CSA stands in their way. In those cases where the non-resident parent is unwilling to meet his or her responsibilities, the CSA is often ill equipped to track that person down.
It is worth taking a closer look at cases to find out specifically where the CSA has gone wrong. I spent some time analysing in detail the 50 significant cases which have been forwarded to me. That analysis reveals that the biggest single problem to emerge in 37 per cent. of cases is faults in the assessment of maintenance made by the CSA in the first place.
That general category of difficulty then divides according to four sub-headings. The first relates to incorrect information about the absent parent's earnings. Often, detailed evidence has been lodged with the CSA about the earnings of the other party, but for some reason the CSA fails to take that into account, or cannot do so. Despite the clear evidence in its receipt, we cannot succeed in getting a reassessment made.
Secondly, the CSA also appears to disregard various forms of unearned income. In one case with which I am familiar, rental income from owned property was not taken into account. Despite the fact that it clearly affected the person's ability to pay, it was somehow excluded from the assessment.
Thirdly, I have also come across assessments that have not been adjusted after changes of circumstances have been reported to the CSA. Often, the necessary reassessment is not made for a long time. In other cases, assessments have been set at an unrealistic level.
Fourthly, there is supposed to be a formula according to which the absent parent is left with a certain percentage of income after payment to the CSA, but, because of the many other administrative problems that I have outlined, many parents find that their disposable income level falls below the threshold set by the CSA. They are simply unable to make the assessment payments decided by the CSA.
The second main category of problem, which affects 19 per cent. of my case load, is the time taken to complete an assessment. In some cases, that delay has lasted three years, and in many for more than one year. I am beginning to find that, sadly, longer-standing delays are not dealt with by CSA officers, possibly because they are so busy trying to speed up work on current requests to ensure that delays do not occur in the first instance. That chokes attempts to deal with those longer-standing problems.
The third main difficulty is the inability of the CSA to take into account relevant new information that can materially affect the original assessment. In addition to those problems, a list of other difficulties has become apparent from my casework. They include failure to provide an interview to someone who needs to present their case to an officer; failure to respond to requests for information; administrative errors; failure to stop attachment of earnings orders long after they have expired; the build-up of arrears without any explanation of how they have arisen; and, in more than one case in my experience so far, the loss of files.
As a result of those problems, the CSA is increasingly seen as lacking credibility by those who must deal with it. That becomes a problem in itself, and encourages many to find ways of avoiding their obligations.
I have discovered that a sub-culture has built up among absent fathers. Gradually, a knowledge is growing of various devices, schemes—even scams—to keep the CSA away, sometimes almost indefinitely. Most of those tactics and ruses are picked up in conversation at the works

canteen, but for those who can afford it, the information is provided by solicitors, who give advice on how to get round certain obligations. Either way, that practice undermines the credibility of the CSA, leaves too many children disadvantaged, and causes too much distress among many parents.
It is, of course, relatively easy to portray the quantifiable nature of the problems, but what sticks in my mind is the unquantifiable ones—particularly the individuals I see at my surgery who are evidently under immense stress as a result of their struggles with the CSA. I see mothers who struggle to cope with bringing up children while the absent fathers deploy any number of means to avoid paying.
One popular avoidance tactic that I keep coming across involves the absent father taking out the largest possible mortgage upon leaving a relationship, because those repayments are taken into account when an assessment of his contributions is made. At the same time, the child care costs met by the single mother are not taken into account on her behalf. Equally, I see fathers who are genuinely willing to support their children, but who are asked to do so at a level that destroys their lives and undermines any chance of starting again or sustaining a second family in a new relationship.
I should like to share with the House one case to illustrate the problems involved. My constituent, Mr. B, had his initial assessment by the CSA in May 1994. It was revised in April 1995, and further review documents were sent out and completed in April 1996, when his ex-wife was also assessed. The CSA stopped his maintenance assessment in February 1997 on the ground that his ex-wife had not co-operated. The CSA then admitted that that decision was incorrect, as his ex-wife had co-operated and returned her forms.
At that point, Mr. B requested that the status of one of his sons should be investigated: he suspected that he should no longer have to pay for him, since he believed that his son was no longer in full-time education. Mr. B was told via the telephone that the CSA did not undertake that type of inquiry, but, later, he received a letter from it giving the results of its investigation into his son's educational status. In October 1997, his case was closed again, and on the basis of that my constituent took out a mortgage to buy a house. The following month, he was told by the CSA that his case had been closed down again in error, and at this point I intervened. I received an explanation from Faith Boardman, whose letter contained the following observation:
I was most concerned about
Mr. B's
case being incorrectly closed given the similar scenario which occurred last year.
My constituent requested a review of payments to offset the arrears that had accumulated as a result of the failed closure of his case, and, on 4 February this year, he received no fewer than 12 paying-in slips from the CSA. Not surprisingly, we are still trying to sort out his case.
It is clear that the present system has become unsustainable. The CSA structures are, in many ways, fatally flawed, and when its failure to interact with the tax and benefits system is factored in, the landscape becomes littered with inconsistencies, perverse incentives and too many ruined lives.
I am therefore pleased that we are at last embarking on a far-reaching reform of the CSA. As we proceed, we must be entirely clear about our basic objectives: first and foremost must be support for children by their parents, but I hope that we shall also seek a regular and reliable flow of maintenance and fair, effective, clear and affordable outcomes for everyone involved. The solution requires a radical rethink, and I am pleased to hear that that is how Ministers are approaching the problem as they prepare the long-awaited Green Paper.

Mrs. Jackie Ballard: I am disappointed that, so far, few women Members of Parliament have been able to speak in the debate, as the Child Support Act is one of those matters that many members of the public feel would have been treated differently had the House been more representative of gender balance in the past.
The break-up of a relationship is distressing for everyone, and especially traumatic when children are involved. As we have heard, even normally sensible and caring adults may use children as weapons in their continuing war, either by denying access or by withholding maintenance payments. What is needed is mediation, not confrontation.
The Child Support Agency is hated by many people because it seldom helps to get extra money to children; it is administratively slow because it works under such a huge burden; it seems to make more than its fair share of mistakes; and, most important, it adds more confrontation and pain to an already difficult situation. As one constituent said to me:
the CSA has led to ever-increasing arguments and the collapse of any civility between myself and my ex-husband.
That cannot be in the interests of the children of the marriage.
The existence of the CSA and the volume of casework it produces for Members of Parliament should have convinced us all—if we needed convincing—of the value of retaining the link between us and our constituents.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: No PR, then.

Mrs. Ballard: That is not an argument against proportional representation, but one in favour of retaining the constituency link, which is possible with many PR systems. How else would those who have no personal experience of maintenance wrangles or marital break-up learn about the problems in the execution of an Act that initially had all-party support?
All hon. Members know of examples of delay and distress caused by the formula, which does not allow for individual circumstances. One of my constituents—a young man whose relationship broke up even before the birth of his child—wanted to be a good father, and had to go to court to get access to his child. However, although he is happy to pay maintenance, his current assessment does not allow for the legal costs he incurred in getting that access to his child to enable him to be a good father. That cannot be in the child's interests, and it might have deterred a less determined father from pursuing his case.
There are also cases in which, because of the legislation, the agency refuses or is unable to get involved, either because the parent with whom the child lives is working and not on benefit and so is not a high priority, or because there is an existing court order in place.
One constituent, whom I cannot name, wanted me to draw the House's attention to her plight. She left a husband who was violent and abusive, both to her and to her children. She has a nine-year-old court order for maintenance payments. Fearing for her own and her children's safety, she moved to another part of the country and has made a new life. However, an order that is nine years old requires the payment of far less maintenance than she should currently be getting. She does not want to go back to court, because her ex-husband might discover where she now lives; but the CSA cannot take up her case, because there is a court order in existence.
Another constituent—a working mother on incapacity benefit—was not considered a priority by the agency because she is working. She has been tempted to give up her job in order to get the agency to help her to obtain maintenance for her children. There are many such instances of the CSA inadvertently encouraging work to welfare.
When I spoke in the Adjournment debate in June, I outlined my four-point plan for reforming the system. I did not want to bore the House by doing the same today, so I wrote to all my constituents on whose behalf I had taken up CSA casework, and asked them what they thought should be put in place. What follows are their positive suggestions for reform of the CSA.
First, as has already been mentioned, my constituents say that we should not stigmatise people by using the terms "absent parent" or "parent with care". Secondly, we should make the system genuinely about child support. Thirdly, they feel that people should be able to get face-to-face interviews, as of right, at local offices, to have the opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I have a great relationship with the CSA in my part of the country. The staff work on many cases, but always grant a face-to-face confrontational debate with any client who has a grievance. However, I now hear that that office is in danger of closing, despite its being the last on Merseyside where one can go to make a face-to-face inquiry. That is happening all over the country.
In the interim period between now and the CSA being wound up and a new system being introduced—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I take it that this is an intervention?

Mr. Fearn: Yes. My final point is, would my hon. Friend agree that closing offices at this stage is not a good thing?

Mrs. Ballard: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Given the demands on the Child Support Agency, it would not appear sensible to be closing offices and losing staff. I am sure that the Minister will respond on that point.
The fourth in my constituents' list of suggestions is that there should be individual, rather than formula-driven, assessments. Fifthly, some suggested that the income tax


code or the national insurance system could be used to recover payments, as happens in Australia. Sixthly, they said that maintenance must be fair, and should reflect the ability to pay. Finally, one constituent made a plea that we should not return to the days of continual visits to court and never-ending war between ex-partners, with suffering children in between.
All those points could be covered if one agency, such as a court, assessed liability on an individual basis, while another was responsible for the enforcement of court orders. Other hon. Members have referred to the system used in the past, which broke down when it came to enforcement.
Millions of people have been adversely affected by the Child Support Act, and it is essential that its replacement should be created only after the widest possible consultation—consultation far beyond this place, with people who have personal experience of both the current system and the previous one. It is important that the new system's overriding remit should be to support children whose parents can no longer live together. Parliament got the Child Support Act hopelessly wrong; we must not repeat that mistake.

Ms Sally Keeble: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the chance to speak in today's debate, which touches on an issue that has been of great concern to my constituents.
While I appreciate the cross-party consensus that exists on many aspects of the subject, I do not believe that the motion, as moved by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), which advocates moving towards a court-based, tribunal-based system—although a number of the comments since made by Liberal Democrat Members have advocated something different—would resolve the difficult problem of ensuring that proper financial provision is made for children whose parents live apart. To say that we need a fair system that encourages parents to agree voluntarily to child support is unrealistic, given the great difficulty that parents have, often in the bitter climate of the breakdown of their relationship, in agreeing to financial support for their children.
There is no doubt of the size of the task. In 1995, 155,000 marriages, about half of which involved children, ended. In the same year, 90,000 children were born to lone mothers. Those are cases that would never normally go through the divorce courts. Those are the children who are most likely to be brought up in poverty, on benefit. Yet there is often a parent who should be contributing, at least financially, to the children's upbringing. I completely agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) that parents should also be exercising other responsibilities.
Whatever the difficulties in its administration, the principles behind the CSA are widely held, as is clear from this afternoon's debate. It is perhaps partly the achievement of the CSA that most people who ask for help start by saying, "Of course, I know that I have got to support my kids," before complaining bitterly about some aspects of its implementation.
The hon. Member for Newbury's criticism that the CSA is actually a Treasury support agency has some sting to it. However, my constituents in Northampton, North

would not necessarily want to see their hard-earned taxes supporting families where they know that there is a parent who could or should support the children, but chooses to walk away from his or her responsibilities.
One of my objections to the proposal that maintenance assessment should be down to courts and tribunals is that lone parents with children would often lose out, just as they did in the years before the CSA was set up, when I believe that three out of four children did not receive any support from one of their parents. The need constantly to go back through the courts or tribunals to get maintenance orders enforced would mean that only the more articulate and well-heeled would be able to chase errant partners. Yet to continue as we are now is not much of an option either.
The CSA's failures account for about one fifth of my casework; I am sure that most other hon. Members are in the same position. Some of the more dramatic cases have included a man whose maintenance payments were taken directly from his pay; because of mistakes made by the CSA and his employers, he was left with £26 one week and £36 another week over Christmas. His workmates had to have a whip round so that his family had enough to live on during the holiday period.
Another case involved a woman who could not get the CSA to respond for years, then found that she could not get it to enforce maintenance orders against her self-employed former husband. She was left severely out of pocket while she saw her former husband enjoying a good life style with his new partner.
Those are formidable problems that are distressing to the people involved, time consuming for all those who provide advice or help and expensive for the state. Ultimately, and most importantly, they leave many children to be brought up in poverty.
Owing to all the difficulties, towards the end of last month, I held a special seminar on the CSA for advice agencies in my constituency and a special surgery for CSA clients. Child Support Agency staff from Belfast and the east midlands attended, and I am most grateful for their support. The occasion provided a good opportunity to talk through some of the measures that could make it easier to achieve the CSA's aims—aims that many divided families say they agree with. Six points emerged that could help to transform the CSA and make it more effective.
The biggest change would be the introduction of a simpler tariff system for the assessment of maintenance, to simplify and speed up the present procedure. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that that should be based on a flat rate rather than a percentage of earnings, as one of the current problems involves people proving and disputing exactly what constitutes earnings.
One of the biggest sources of problems with the CSA is the fact that the present assessment procedure is so cumbersome. It provides for endless assessments and reviews, so an absent parent can put off paying maintenance for a couple of years, only to find that he or she is then faced with arrears running into many thousands of pounds. By that time, the family circumstances will have changed and the process will have to begin all over again.
Having established simpler procedures for setting maintenance, there then needs to be much quicker enforcement. The CSA's present enforcement procedures,


using deduction of earnings orders to stop money direct from people's wages, are draconian, but they usually come too late. One man who came to see me recently had £500 or more stopped from his £1,100 a month wages—his maintenance liability plus repayment of arrears totalling £12,000. The arrears were mainly his fault, but any sensible collection agency would not allow a person to accrue such arrears in the first place. I understand that the total amount owed by absent parents is £1 billion.
If the present assessment procedures are retained, better recognition needs to be given to the full cost of housing and travel to work because 15 miles is quite a long distance, particularly when there is no proper public transport. In addition, there should be recognition of parity of the cost of a first and second family.
A radical improvement is needed in the way in which CSA staff communicate with their clients. Computer printouts do not meet the needs of the many people who need to go through their affairs in detail, face to face with someone else. At present, face-to-face interviews are possible, but many people do not know about them and, in some instances, it appears that those facilities might disappear.
The CSA needs to be more proactive in chasing up the more difficult cases and getting absent parents who fail to support their children to recognise their financial responsibility. There is resentment of the fact that the CSA chases the more co-operative parents for yet more money while those who do not co-operate still get off scot-free.
Many absent or non-resident parents resent the fact that, however much they pay to the CSA, they still have little chance of improving the living conditions of children who grow up on income support. Many of my constituents would welcome a maintenance disregard for income support applicants—as suggested by a number of previous speakers—to provide incentives for absent parents to support their children, to provide some parity with applicants in receipt of family credit and to deal with child poverty. At present, we hear of absent parents offering their former partners so much a week not to co-operate with the CSA. The absent parent is better off, there is more money for the children and there is none of the bureaucratic hassle, but the state loses out, which means that other taxpayers lose out.
The Government are right to review and reorganise the CSA—perhaps to rename it and give it a fresh start. To abolish it would send out mixed messages to the public about changing the rules and letting people off their responsibilities just when we are making some headway and encouraging the idea of parental support and responsibility for children.
It is right to take a bit more time over the review as it is widely recognised by all parties that many of the problems were caused by the inadequacy of the original legislation and the lack of scrutiny. A botched job will not be made better by a botched repair job.
I would much rather that we have a thorough review that will produce the changes—I hope that they will be radical changes—that are needed for the CSA to achieve its goals and ensure that parents make proper financial provision for their children even if they do not live with their partners. We must ensure that the state—other

taxpayers—is not left to pick up the bill for children who are left by one of their parents. Above all, we must ensure that children are properly supported by both their parents, not brought up in poverty.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: One of the advantages of having sat out the previous Parliament is that I have spent five years without having to deal with CSA cases. On my return to Parliament, I found that CSA cases take up much of my time and cause me the most grief.
It was right and proper that we introduced the CSA through the Child Support Act 1991. I was in the House when the measure was proposed and its principle was welcomed in all parts of the House because it was felt that action was needed to deal with a widespread problem. I remind the House of what the then Secretary of State for Social Security, Mr. Tony Newton, said when he introduced his White Paper. He outlined what he hoped would result from the measure and said:
Governments cannot, of course, ensure that all children always live with both their parents, but they can and should seek to ensure that, whatever the underlying circumstances, the welfare of the children is the prime consideration.
It was always the Conservative Government's intention to ensure that the measure dealt adequately with the welfare of children.
In fairness, Mr. Newton said that the taxpayer also had an interest in the matter. He said that support for lone parents
places a large burden on those who pay tax, many of whom are themselves bringing up children on perhaps quite modest incomes."—[Official Report, 29 October 1990; Vol.178, c. 729.]
Those two issues in that order were presented by Mr. Newton. The Minister has been good enough to admit that he has reversed the order. Both are important.
It was right for us to introduce a measure that tried to deal with the problem of gross irresponsibility because those who produce children, and particularly men, should not be able to walk away from their responsibilities. We must ensure that they maintain their children. The measure has worked but, as the House has heard, there have been grave shortcomings in its operation.
I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said. My constituents tell me that the CSA seems to concentrate on those, particularly men, who are contributing. Without exception they tell me, "I acknowledge my responsibilities. I know that I ought to pay for the maintenance of my child and I want to do that, but there is a limit to what I can afford."
The overwhelming proportion of my case load on this issue consists of fathers complaining about the effect on their new family arrangements. Only two mothers came to see me and the husband of one of them is self-employed. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) spoke about the difficulties of the self-employed. That woman knows the life style of her former husband. He has a fine car, a good house, a mobile phone and a fax machine and so on, but he has not paid her a penny and the CSA has told me that there is no way that it can get any money out of him. Such failure is unacceptable.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who is not in his place, spoke about second marriages. The difficulties surrounding such marriages were graphically brought home to me by those who came to my surgery or whom I visited in their homes. Whatever our views on marriage and the desirability of ensuring that marriages are maintained—I know that the Minister and I share strong common ground on that—some break down and we have to try to cope with the consequences.
If people who have made arrangements remarry, there are inevitably children and it is a traumatic experience trying to cope with the demands that are placed upon them. The problem is not the principle that they should contribute to the maintenance of their children from the previous marriage but the amount of that contribution. They find it intolerable, and I understand why they are exasperated. One man said in my surgery, "Unless I can change the arrangements, I do not see the point in carrying on with life." He did not say that simply to dramatise the situation for my benefit: that is what he felt. A man with an attachment of earnings order loses that money from his account at once because it is the first claim on his income. Such men feel a sense of hopelessness and powerlessness and that is serious.
Another point that is put to me by constituents is that the first wife has found somebody else, is living comfortably and is being looked after by the new husband. The father who is trying to look after his children as best he can feels a huge sense of grievance. He knows that his child or children are being well looked after because the household in which his ex-wife is living is more comfortable than his own. The CSA does not make as thorough an investigation of how the parent with custody is faring vis-à-vis the father and the father's new family.
Much has been made of the CSA's staff. I have no doubt that, in a difficult job, the staff are well intentioned and trying to cope. However, some of their mistakes are unforgivable, and the CSA does not seem to be user friendly. As many hon. Members have said, constituents cannot get the staff on the telephone or get any sense from the CSA, and they deal with a different person each time. It took the CSA nine months to assess the review of one of my constituents, although he had provided all that was required. At the end of the nine months, the CSA sent him a bill for £2,000, which is a hell of a lot of money. The guy did not have it and the bill sent a shock through the household. The CSA does not seem to be alive to the implications of the huge burdens that it places on families.
In a garrison town such as Aldershot, there are also difficulties. There is a lack of sensitivity. A soldier who was about to be posted to Northern Ireland, which in some respects is an active theatre, got a load of stuff from the CSA demanding yet more money two weeks before he was due to go. When he was in Northern Ireland, more letters arrived demanding more money and his second wife told the CSA, "I am not sending these on to my husband. He is out there in Northern Ireland putting his life on the line." The CSA needs to put right that lack of sensitivity.
I agree with much of what has been said about improvements. If the appointment of case officers means more staff, I think that the House would be prepared to wear it if it means that constituents feel that they have some contact rather than the faceless and constantly changing scene of the CSA. The availability of interviews

will be beneficial because people want to speak to someone. There is no point in saying, as Mrs. Boardman once said to me, that much business is conducted on the telephone.
I am not sure that it is possible to devise a formula that will meet all circumstances. A simple formula could be unfair and a complex one would be incredibly time consuming. The CSA must acknowledge that those who are responsible for new families should be given more consideration of what is required to maintain that new family and prevent it from becoming another burden on the state. I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said in the debate. I am sure that the House feels that he will deal sensitively with the matter, and we look forward to the results of his review.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. It enables me to do two things: first, to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform on the strong Government amendment and, secondly, to bring home to him, if I can, the extreme urgency of the review and of the measures that will doubtless attend us.
As you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our surgeries are sad places; at least mine is. During our surgeries, we deal with just about every form of economic and physical disability and all the attendant miseries that they bring. However, I want to bring home to the Minister—I think that he knows this—that no single thing causes more anxiety, despair, depression and family break-up than the Child Support Agency.
I take issue with some hon. Members who have spoken about the complexity of this: CSA reform is not a complex matter. The agony of the CSA may be distilled, effectively, into three problems. The first, which has been touched on by many hon. Members, is the CSA's statutory impotence in pursuing and enforcing orders against people who will not co-operate. The vast majority of them are indeed self-employed men who are able to obfuscate the nature of their earnings.
The second problem is the ghastly and impenetrable formula with which we have to operate and in which CSA staff are trapped. I suffer particularly badly from the formula. Many of my constituents have picked up a rumour that, in my other life, I was a lawyer dealing with commercial fraud in the City. They therefore jump to the conclusion that I may be able to assist them with the impenetrable demands that are made on them by the formula. Thus, when they come to my surgery and perceive that I cannot understand a word of it either, to their many other complaints is added dreadful disappointment at the legal system and legal education.
The third matter that needs urgently to be dealt with—we all hear about it all the time in our surgeries—is the chaotic state of assessment reviews, which are now done not annually, but, if people are lucky, bi-annually. That results in the sudden, again impenetrable, sometimes downright contradictory demand—to men who have done nothing but honourably meet the debts that they were told they had—for many thousands of pounds, with all the shock and trauma that that causes.
Recognising as I do that anecdotal evidence is the last thing that the Minister wants in this case, may I bring to his attention one particular case, which involves a soldier,


interestingly enough? I also represent a garrison town. One particular soldier comes to me. I am honoured when soldiers come into my surgeries. In general terms, and this man is no exception, they are brave and honourable men who want nothing more than to serve their country and to support their children. In that respect, he is absolutely no exception. He and his family have been brought to the verge of despair by a series of completely impenetrable, totally contradictory demands for arrears running into many, many thousands of pounds, which has resulted in the break-up of his family.
When I see in my surgery that that otherwise brave service man, who would follow you anywhere, Mr. Deputy Speaker—indeed, he would follow you across the sands of Arabia—has been brought to the verge of a nervous breakdown, I reflect that there is one ghastly secret weapon that we must at all cost keep out of the hands of the world's dictators: the workings of the CSA. Indeed, if several million bogus letters resembling those from the CSA were addressed to British soldiers and allowed to waft across the battlefield, it would cause paralysis among the vast majority of our officers and men.
I advance three nostrums that would largely right the wrongs of the present CSA. First, I am against reinventing the wheel of the family court. The agency in itself, if reformed, is perfectly adequate, but it needs the power to obtain evidence on oath and by affidavit, particularly from people who are recalcitrant and will not provide the evidence that it needs. Thus, the enormously powerful remedy of perjury would be available to the agency, as it was to the courts.
The second reform that I urge on the Minister is that there should be a limit in the CSA's power to attract or to enforce arrears, where the accumulation of those arrears is the fault of the CSA. My third proposal is that the rigid formula that we have to live with should be replaced by a mixture of consensus and orders, to be backed, if necessary, by proper sanctions. However, those orders should be based on what the courts used to call, in the old days, when we dealt with such things, reasonableness between the parties.
If those reforms were brought into effect, many of our problems would be resolved and our surgeries would be shorter and infinitely more pleasant.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I hope that I can say without offending anyone that, as a new Member, this debate has been a refreshing experience for me. This is what the House of Commons should be about: adult discussion, with hon. Members expressing different views, but constructively. It is heartening.
The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) knows infinitely more about the law than I ever shall, but as other speeches have illustrated, the CSA's activities are not suited to bureaucratic methods. Those are not the right way in which to deal with the problems. Some sort of court system, which should be as informal as possible, would be better.
With that system, it should be possible to persuade more couples to come to an agreement, which is obviously better than some bureaucrat trying to enforce

something. It is harder to persuade other couples to come to an agreement, but under that system, they would respect a face-to-face discussion, with a neutral party adjudicating. Many people would accept the decision of that informal system and pay up. There is then the third group, which is totally bloody-minded and would not pay up at all.
An informal court hearing system that learnt from experience elsewhere—for example, the children's hearing system in Scotland, which works well in dealing informally with family problems that are not unrelated to the things that the CSA examines—would be the best way in which to deal with the matter, rather than having a bureaucrat who tried to enforce lots of rules.
I was struck by the Minister's comment, if I understood him correctly, that it was not possible for any competent official to understand the whole system. That one sentence demolishes the system. Any system that a reasonably intelligent official cannot understand is not worth having and should be thrown into the wastepaper basket.
The other aspect is enforcement, to which other hon. Members have referred. That has to be dealt with much more seriously. There could be a structure whereby people who acted in a civilised way and co-operated paid less than those who were bolshie and bloody-minded. It surely must be possible to extract money out of people, using the tax system or whatever other system is used, and ensuring that they pay up. Those who are willing to pay, but who have temporary difficulties, should be treated more leniently. It would be reasonable to have an informal court system to reach agreement on the figures, but a really strict enforcement system for those who will not pay. Then, we would get on much better.
My experience is that other parts of the benefits system create just as much trouble for people as the CSA. Indeed, I have more trouble with the disability living allowance system than with the CSA. The point is that child support is not a suitable subject for a bureaucratic system.
I hope that the Minister will consider the ideas put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House in what has been a very constructive debate.

Dr. Brian Iddon: Never has an Act of Parliament caused so much misery as the Child Support Act 1991. It was poor legislation when it was introduced, in too much haste, and it desperately needs reforming. If my right hon. Friend the Minister can create a simple new legislative system that actually works and is seen to be fair by all involved, at some time in the future we might find him perched on a pedestal somewhere along the embankment. My first experience of the Act was when I became a Member of Parliament last May, so I see it only through the eyes of my constituents. As I am by no means an expert, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend say that even some of the staff at the CSA find the system difficult to operate.
I want to mention some of the problems that have beset some of my constituents. Several of them are still paying child maintenance, through deduction of earnings, way beyond the normal cut-off age of 18. One constituent is still paying for a child who is well past 19. Perhaps the date of birth could be programmed into the mechanism to trigger an automatic cut-off for the deduction of earnings order, so that my constituents would not have to fight to get the payments stopped.
In one case, the mother was initially awarded care of the son for 18 months. Unfortunately, it soon became apparent that she was a drug addict. The father has now looked after the son, Simon, for three years. He has been to see me several times, in sheer desperation, because he is still being made to pay child maintenance to the drug-addict mother. Although I have tried, I cannot persuade the Child Support Agency to stop the order. It is a remarkable delay in taking any action.
Another constituent has tried to commit suicide three times. He often breaks down when he comes to see me in my surgery, so it takes me a long time to interview him and discover any new problem. Over a period of 18 months, he has had 16 reassessments of between £12 and £110, despite the fact that his wage has never changed. He has received no overtime or any other significant alteration in his income over that period. His mother also comes to my surgery, desperately pleading with me to sort out that tricky problem.
On a more trivial level, one constituent tried to contact the CSA many, many times—unfortunately, on a mobile telephone. When he finally got through, it took 45 minutes to get an answer to his query. He did not dare hang up because he was desperate to sort it out. That one telephone call cost him £28.
The Child Support Act is anti-marriage—as other hon. Members have said, although sometimes in a different way. A number of my constituents have told me that when they many a new partner, the CSA is quick to descend on them and take any earnings by the new wife into account. However, it does not seem to work the other way. A number of the fathers tell me that their former wives are living in the lap of luxury, often fraudulently claiming benefits. I have submitted evidence to the CSA showing that some mothers are living with new partners who are working and have good incomes, yet they continue to draw benefits, including housing benefit. The CSA just says, "Sorry, it is not our job to sort out fraudulent claims from the Benefits Agency." Surely something must be done about that. Because of such practices, fathers are often less well off than the mothers to whom they pay maintenance through the Child Support Agency.
The CSA claims that it does not take more than 30 per cent. of disposable income—or 40 per cent. when there are arrears. I have a constituent who is losing half his disposable income because of a CSA assessment. I have fought that, but cannot get it altered. I have not had an adequate response.
Several hon. Members said that the formula is extremely complicated and does not take into account individual circumstances. I concur with that view. In addition, the forms that must be filled in are far too complicated for many of my constituents, yet they get little help with them. I agree with other hon. Members that, if we are to continue with such a complicated system for the next two years, face-to-face contact with those operating the system is absolutely essential so that correct advice can be given.
In my constituents' experience, the CSA is unapproachable. Many of them would like to have a calm, collected interview with CSA staff, who could explain how assessments have been made. They would then feel reassured that no mistakes had been made. In fact, a face-to-face interview is difficult to obtain—and, as hon. Members have said, offices are being closed, so it will

become even more difficult. If, against our hopes, nothing happens, the expectation is that by 2000 there will be a 60 per cent. increase in the number of cases dealt with by the CSA. However, we have been told that in the 1998–99 financial year the agency is expected to make a 10 per cent. saving. That does not make sense. That sort of requirement will not produce the improved service that is obviously needed.
On behalf of my constituents, I urge good speed on my right hon. Friend the Minister in reforming this invidious piece of legislation. We look forward to a simpler system. None of my constituents disagrees with the basic principle that the care of children should be shared between the parents.

Mr. John Cryer: I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate. I reiterate what other hon. Members have said—what we learn at our advice surgeries and from the letters and telephone calls we receive shows the nightmare that the Child Support Agency has wreaked across the country. Hon. Members from England, Scotland and Wales have spoken this afternoon, but they all tell of the same experience—that the CSA is making many lives miserable. I was pleased to see the strength of language used in the Government amendment; I hope that it is a sign of the speed with which the Government will change the system.
Last year, at the back of the Child Support Agency's annual report—which was released in July and, in the circumstances, was a surprisingly cheery little tome—the Comptroller and Auditor General delivered his own report, in which he mentioned a few alarming percentages. Some examples included the fact that 39 per cent. of receipts from absent parents were wrong, as were 85 per cent. of absent parents' maintenance balances. Those mistakes have a clear and common root: the initial assessments made by the Child Support Agency were wrong, which led to the subsequent mistakes.
A related matter, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform said, is the system's complexity, in addition to its rigidity. Like other hon. Members, I have experiences of ringing the Child Support Agency with a perfectly reasonable offer that is turned down because those at the agency say that it is not allowed by the formula in the original legislation.
We must deal not only with mistakes in maintenance assessments and with rigidity and complexity in the original legislation's formula, but with enormous time lags in dealing with assessments or reassessments—which, last year, took at least a year in more than half the applications. Only 63 per cent. of cases requiring assessments to be readjusted were cleared in 13 weeks, which is an appalling track record for any agency.
One of my constituents, who was working as a docker at Tilbury docks, was earning £1,400 net per month—which included a great deal of overtime that he earned to pay £350 monthly to the Child Support Agency. After he received a serious injury—which often happens to dockers—his income fell to £1,100 per month because of lost overtime. The CSA refused to take account of that income drop, the consequence of which was that he breached the protected income figure that the CSA had determined. I was told over the telephone by the CSA that the figure was £880, but that figure was later denied.
Subsequently, although the CSA agreed that it was all right to breach that figure, there were further complications. The agency eventually made an adjustment of £8 per week and apologised for its mistake. However, that constituent was probably only one of thousands of people who have enormous problems with the CSA, which are making their lives a real misery.
The root of the problems is undoubtedly six years ago, when the CSA was founded. It was established hurriedly and incompetently, and on fairly inaccurate information, to subsidise state spending. It has consequently become the shambles that it is today. The previous Government saw in the CSA and in the Child Support Act 1991 an opportunity to subsidise their social security spending, and we are living with the consequences.

Mr. Richard Allan: The hon. Gentleman referred to the delays, which in my experience are absolutely critical. In his speech, the Minister rightly praised the work of staff who are already at the agency. Something that all hon. Members could look forward to is having twice as many excellent members of staff working at the agency. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in asking the Minister immediately to put more resources into staff, so that matters are dealt with more quickly? The review is bound to take much longer, and misery will continue to be inflicted on people unless there are more resources for staff.

Mr. Cryer: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have conveyed the message and agree that extra resources are desirable. However, the change programme—which is a leftover from the previous Government and was clearly an attempt to privatise sections of the public sector—is continuing, and it will not help the CSA or any other part of the public sector. As we are already seeing, that programme is really privatisation by the back door.
There is evidence that single parents—or parents with care—are deliberately trying to avoid going to the CSA. As I have heard in my surgery, if they go to the CSA, their benefits might be stopped and they might have to wait for six or 12 months—they do not know for how long—until they get money from the CSA. There are also fears that the ex-husband or ex-partner, if he is of a violent frame of mind, might come calling if the CSA starts pursuing him in the manner that it does.
I should like the CSA to be overhauled radically, which would effectively entail its abolition and replacement with something else. I have sympathy for moving towards the Australian system, but I do not advocate a return to using family courts, which are unnecessary. We could move towards a more consensual system, so that we do not have a repeat of the huge misery that has been caused in the past six years. However, that is the long term; in the short term, the system requires an overhaul of its method of assessment and of the criteria that it uses. The system will then start to work more efficiently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) mentioned the problem of lowering the divorce rate and said that there is not an easy answer to that problem. However, the easy answer is full employment. I guarantee that the divorce rate will drop like a stone if we have full employment. The causes of

divorce are poverty, financial insecurity and unemployment. Once we start more broadly to attack those problems, the divorce rate will start to drop.

Mrs. Janet Dean: I am pleased to be able to speak in this debate, which has been very useful in allowing new Members to share the considerable knowledge of the operation of the Child Support Agency that we have gained in recent months. It is important that we have radical reform, as nothing less will bring respect to a vital service for children in the United Kingdom.
Sadly, I do not believe that, from its inception, the Child Support Agency has had respect—which is not an accusation against its staff. As other hon. Members have said in this debate, the agency's staff are working in very difficult circumstances. Specifically, because the legislation was retrospective, havoc was caused and good support agreements between parents were torn apart once the Child Support Agency became involved. The children are the ones to lose out when a quite reasonable relationship breaks down.
The CSA tackled the "easy cases" because it had to get the money in. Therefore, those who most need maintenance support for their children do not receive the help from the agency that they should have. Demands were made on absent parents—I, too, think that we should change that phrase, but it is the one that we currently use—that were seen to be unreasonable.

Mr. Mark Oaten: Surely the hon. Lady will agree that, as the Government have used the phrase "non-resident" in their amendment to the motion, she could use this opportunity to tell the Minister that there is no reason why the phrase could not be changed tomorrow. Making that change and doing away with the term "absent parent" would make a great difference to many people who complain about it. Perhaps the Minister will consider doing so tomorrow, and the hon. Lady can make representations on that.

Mrs. Dean: I certainly urge the Minister to change the term to "non-resident parent" as soon as possible and practicable. As has already been said in the debate, most parents—usually fathers, but sometimes mothers—want to pay to support their children. However, they are faced with problems such as those that have been mentioned. Ultimately, money is demanded of them and they think that the system is being unfair.
As hon. Members have said, there are cases in which a first wife who has care of the children becomes relatively well off when she remarries. It is a real problem when both the non-resident parent who is paying for a child's upkeep and his second family are struggling and suffering, whereas his ex-wife's new family are living quite well. The problem is that he is paying to support not only the child, but the mother and the child. Clearly, that causes a great deal of resentment. There have been so many mistakes in the calculations that the whole system has been brought into disrepute.
The other side of the equation is that the parent with care is not getting the maintenance that she—it is generally a she—should be getting. As has been said, it is particularly difficult to sort out when the non-resident parent is self-employed. We must introduce methods to


tackle that problem. It is easy to get money from an individual who is paid a wage—one can simply have an order placed on that wage—but it is not so easy when the individual is self-employed.
I quite like the idea of a percentage or flat-rate system being introduced, but whatever we do needs to be simple.

Dr. Iddon: Does my hon. Friend admit that there is a danger in a percentage system in that it would hit low wage earners far harder than it would hit those who are extremely or moderately well off?

Mrs. Dean: I think that a percentage system would generally be able to recognise differences in income. There needs to be a recognition of additional children for whom people may care. For example, I know of cases in my constituency where a man pays to support his children from a former marriage. At the same time, his new wife has children from her previous marriage, but those children are getting no income from her previous partner. Effectively, the husband is being forced to support two families. Any new maintenance assessment procedure needs to cover such problems.

Mr. Rendel: Has not the hon. Lady just exemplified why any formula is so difficult to operate? Every Labour Member who has suggested a formula of any kind has immediately had to say that of course it would also have to take into account this, that and the other. To be fair, the Tories were beginning to introduce some changes, but the formula became ever more complex.

Mrs. Dean: Obviously, any review is going to be difficult; if that were not so, we would not be discussing the matter now.
I urge Ministers to consult as widely as possible and in the greatest possible depth on any proposals. Our main objective must be a formula that is simple enough for everyone to understand—not only parents, but the people who operate it. It must also be respected on all sides. That is crucial because where the country went wrong in the first place was in establishing an agency that did not have that respect. We must start afresh and introduce a system that everyone can respect.

Mr. Steve Webb: Hon. Members of all parties have said what a good debate this has been, and I echo those sentiments. The tone was well set by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) in the measured way in which he moved the motion, and that tone was picked up by the Minister of State and, indeed, by the Opposition spokesman. Today's experience has shown the value of Opposition day debates and, at the risk of being ever so slightly partisan, of Liberal Democrat Opposition day debates in particular. We have sought to take a contentious issue and offer some constructive thoughts on how it might be dealt with.
As a new Member, I was intrigued to hear the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard) and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). They mentioned two things that Back Benchers can do to make individual constituents feel part of the political process. My hon. Friend related how she had asked constituents who had had contact with the CSA

and who had written to her about it what they would do. She has ensured that their voices have been heard today, and that is very valuable. The hon. Member for Northampton, North brought together all the stakeholders—I think that that is the phrase—in the Child Support Agency and enabled a dialogue to take place. Face-to-face dialogue is what is so often lacking—that is what we need more of, not the shutting of benefit offices.
I am grateful to the Minister of State for his kind remarks. He has been something of a sponsor of my involvement in these Corridors in that, while he was Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, I took on the role of specialist adviser. I think of him as a sponsor, or almost a godfather—[Interruption.] Yes, an absent parent. It is not a role that he will regret.
Many of the hard-pressed staff of the CSA have been praised by hon. Members, and I echo that praise. The people whom we telephone on the Members of Parliament hotline often give prompt and efficient service. That is good and it makes some of my constituents think that I am an effective Member of Parliament, which is always welcome. However, when I achieve something as a Member of Parliament by pulling strings or using special telephone lines, I wonder why my constituents cannot get the same service. I hope that whatever system we introduce will give everyone that quality of service.
Some of the praise for the staff rings a little hollow, given that we know that some of them will be laid off or not have their contracts renewed even though the agency's work load will increase by 50 per cent. In two years' time, the Government may have a simple system in place and those staff may not be needed, but between now and then, it is going to be hell—hell for the staff and for the people who have to deal with the agency. Although the language has been measured, and there have been good-natured comments from all parties, I hope that the Government will not take that as a reason for complacency—I am sure that they will not. The language has been measured, but for our constituents, this is a matter of great urgency. I hope that once the Green Paper has been produced in the summer and the consultation has been undertaken, the Government will act quickly.
Where should we go from here? It is easy to take an easy target like the CSA and to say that we should get rid of it—and get a few good headlines in the process—but to offer no alternative. We must not be guilty of that; we must offer a constructive way forward. Today, we have heard many elements of that way forward. The new agency, the court or whatever system we put in its place must be properly resourced from the outset.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) mentioned the CSA's annual report, which states that half of all maintenance applications are more than a year out of date. Sometimes, my constituents have to wait a while for a reply from me, but if half had to wait for a year, I suspect that I would not have a job after the next election, and rightly so.
The CSA's report also shows that in one in six cases, the assessment of maintenance owed is out by more than £1,000. How can that have been allowed to continue for so long? When will it get better? I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us.
The agency's replacement—whether it be a new agency or a court—must be properly funded and flexible. Criticism has been made—rightly so—of a rigid,


formula-based system. The initial system was rigid and it was seen to be unjust, so departures from the rigid system were introduced to correct perceived injustices. If the original formula was too rigid and inflexible and created injustices, how can it be right to move towards an even more simplistic, rigid and bureaucratic formula?
The Minister of State essentially announced a non-residential child tax. That is my understanding of the drift of the Government's proposal. It will certainly be simple, it will save on staffing at the agency and it will cut the backlog but, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said, a simple formula will mean rough justice. If there was a sense of rough justice with the fairly sophisticated formula with which we began, how much greater will the sense of injustice be if a tax—a flat-rate or a percentage system—is introduced?

Mr. Field: As the hon. Gentleman's party claims to have introduced income tax, how does that feature in his argument?

Mr. Webb: Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been washing their hands of what happened under the previous Administration, but I am not sure that we can be blamed for income tax.
To use the court system as an analogy, once innocence or guilt has been established, judges have flexibility in sentencing to enable them to take account of the circumstances of an individual case. There is no reason why the same should not apply to child support. We should have broad guidelines and principles, but the ability to take individual circumstances into account.
The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is no longer in his place, proposed a test of reasonableness. That is a good idea. Instead of having a flat-rate or lump-sum tax, there should be a reasonable assessment of individual circumstances. The system needs to be flexible, fair and seen to be fair. The Child Support Agency is neither. We have heard today that parents with care and non-resident parents want the chance to be heard. That will not happen if they are faced with a lump-sum tax that takes no account of their personal circumstances.
The agency has been accused of chasing easy cases. That is another instance in which the CSA is not seen to be fair. I make one suggestion as to how that perception can be changed. The performance targets for the CSA relate partly to how much maintenance it recovers and not to the number of people from whom maintenance is recovered. Members of the CSA staff worth their salt will, therefore, go for the easy cases in order to meet their performance target. The performance target should also relate to the proportion of people from whom money has been recovered and thereby change the incentive structure. Perhaps the next set of performance targets should create the right incentives instead of the wrong ones.
Most of all, we need a system of child support that puts children first. The hon. Member for Croydon, North made several proposals with which I heartily agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that we needed to ensure that the incentives were right. At the moment, they are all wrong.
There is no incentive to co-operate as it is not in the interests of the absent parent or the children. For goodness' sake, we should allow the parents—and thereby the children—to keep some of the money. That would not cost much up front and it could even save money if it increased compliance with the CSA. It could also be introduced in the Budget. If there are a few hundred million pounds knocking around—and I understand that the Chancellor has a little to throw into the pot—let us forget about working family tax credits and have instead a maintenance disregard.
Just occasionally, the Liberal Democrats are asked where the money would come from to pay for our ideas. The working family tax credit will require several hundred million pounds. I would throw the money in a different direction. We need a system that puts children first and a maintenance disregard would do exactly that.
Mention has been made of letting people take maintenance into work as a firm foundation. That has to be right. If maintenance were enforced, a lone mother would have the confidence to take work knowing that the maintenance that she received was guaranteed by the state. If that money stopped, the state would have plenty of mechanisms for recovering it. The state is pretty good at getting money off people—much better than the CSA.
If we are interested in welfare to work—and apparently we are—let us give lone parents the bedrock of maintenance. Let us make sure that they get it and thus give them an incentive to co-operate with the agency. If they take low-paid work, let us underwrite their maintenance so that they have the confidence to take a job.
We have sought to be constructive about the direction that we want child support policy to take. We believe that a flat-rate or percentage tax would be a gross injustice and that the system should take account of individual circumstances and put children first.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): I acknowledge that the Liberal Democrats initiated the debate, and it is important that the Government respond to the many issues that have been raised.
I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in today's extremely interesting, thoughtful and stimulating debate. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) set the tone, and enabled it to be one of the better parliamentary occasions in which I have participated in the past 11 years. Similarly, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) summed up the Liberal Democrat position, although I am not totally convinced that he answered the question from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform about the future of income tax, but we shall leave that for another occasion.
Crucially, the debate has enabled hon. Members—and particularly Back Benchers—on both sides of the House to express their views about the way in which the Child Support Agency should be reformed. The important message that has come out of the debate is how clearly and consistently the issues that concern hon. Members have been placed on record, and the fact that many of those issues are common to all hon. Members through their postbags and their constituency casework. I can assure the House that Ministers deal with similar constituency cases. Many of the issues are common to us all, and form our thinking as the review progresses.
There is a fundamental principle on which all debates on child support should be based: all children have a right to the emotional and financial support of both their parents. That right does not diminish if their parents no longer live together. It is a principle to which the Government fully subscribe, and we shall ensure that it is at the heart of any reform of the child support scheme.
As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate for the Government, child support has the potential drastically to enhance the quality of life of many of the poorest children in society. He set out the principles and objectives that we want the Green Paper to address, and the direction that we expect it to take. He and many other hon. Members rightly praised the staff of the CSA, and I add my voice to that—but not without caveat and exception.
In praising the staff, we have to recognise the difficulties they experience because of the nature of their work and the formula that we have imposed on them, as well as the context in which they operate. In addition, the technology that they use to assess people fails to communicate with other agencies.
For example, the Child Support Agency cannot communicate with the Benefits Agency, so income support and maintenance—fundamentals of the system—cannot be considered together. That results in anguish and concern for the parent with care and the absent parent when letters from the CSA cascade through their letterboxes. It is not necessarily the fault of the staff, but it is the fault of the system, which cannot suppress change after change to the formula. We have to address those issues if we are properly to address the needs of staff and ensure that praise is directed towards them.
As I said, many hon. Members have expressed their views on how the Child Support Agency should be reformed. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) assured us that he welcomed the forthcoming Green Paper, and that the Opposition would contribute to the debate and make their own proposals for reform. We look forward to those as soon as possible.
I welcome—as I always do in summing up such debates—the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks). He always gives a thoughtful and comprehensive view of the state of child support in the widest sense. His contributions are always welcome. He particularly advocated a child maintenance disregard, as he has consistently for many years. I assure him that that will be included as part of our review.
Like many hon. Members, my hon. Friend has called for a simpler formula, but recognised the rough justice that that may cause. The formula is part of the review. He also called for a more case-worker-focused approach to child support and assessment, as did many others, including the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who is not in his place, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) and the hon. Member for Taunton (Mrs. Ballard). They recognise the need for face-to-face contact.

Mr. Blizzard: One of the most enlightening points made during the debate came from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform. When asked, "Why cannot my constituents speak to the same person?" he explained that many cases were too complicated for one person. That is an argument for simplification.
If a case is too complicated for the official, it must be too complicated for the customer. While we are seeking a way to reform the system, cannot a method be devised to enable our constituents to go back to a named official who either knows the answer or can get the answer from someone who knows?

Mr. Bradley: I understand that well-made point. We are looking carefully at interaction between the agency and the public.
Comment has been made about proposals to close offices. Those proposals relate mainly to the centralisation of processing work rather than direct contact, be it face to face, by telephone or through other methods of communication. We want to move towards individual casework, while recognising that an individual case worker may not have all the tools to deal with the case.
We want to streamline the process to ensure that the member of the public knows whom they are talking to on the telephone or has the opportunity to go into the office and make direct contact, which is the most effective way to get satisfaction. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform said, when more than 90 per cent. of staff time is taken trying to understand the formula, how can we ensure that face-to-face work is undertaken? The process has to be streamlined and simplified.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) proposed simplifying the system with a percentage scheme. That will have to be considered. He also pointed out the crucial problem of dealing with self-employed people. That point has been well made by hon. Members on both sides. I am well aware of it from my constituency cases. I assure the House that we shall examine the issue in the review.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), the hon. Member for Taunton and others talked about terminology. We have recognised the need for more sensitive terminology. The term "non-resident parent" has been used. It has been suggested that we could make the change overnight. We can change the words we use when we talk, but my understanding—I shall confirm this—is that the terms "parent with care" and "absent parent" are used in primary legislation. Changing all references to those terms would require changes to primary legislation, which cannot be done overnight. However, that does not stop us using more family-friendly terms—perhaps "Mum" and "Dad" are suitable.
Many hon. Members have suggested that change should come as soon as possible. I recognise the anxieties expressed by hon. Members on both sides about their dealings with the Child Support Agency. We want to ensure that any change we make is a change for the better. We do not want to rush into quick fixes that compound the problems that we are all experiencing.
Debates such as this give Back Benchers a chance to express their views. There will also be an opportunity for proper consultation when the Green Paper is published, when we hope to have a further useful debate—as we have had this evening—on reform of the Child Support Agency. We want to reflect the wishes of all hon. Members, and do not want to compound the difficulties by rushing into reform without fully understanding all the problems.
I commend the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt), who made a detailed examination of his cases. The evidence


he presented to the House will help to inform our decisions on the details of the reform process. I shall read the report of his contribution carefully, to ensure that the issues that he has raised are taken into account in the review.
I understand the anxiety that has been expressed about the Child Support Agency's budgets for the next two years. We have put in an extra £15 million for this financial year. Another £15 million will be put in for the next financial year in an attempt to resolve some of the agency's administration difficulties. On top of that, from April there will be an opportunity for Benefits Agency staff to help with income support assessments and the filling in of child support assessment forms.
I recognise the problems that have been identified on the complexity of child support assessment forms. Similar problems are experienced with all social security forms. A fundamental review of all social security forms is under way. There is no point in collecting information for the sake of it. We have to ensure that the information we collect has a purpose, can be used sensibly, and leads to a more efficient and effective service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North made proposals on sensible reform of the agency. I assure her that we shall consider them carefully to determine how they can best fit into the Green Paper. She will have an opportunity for further comment at that stage.
I also commend the contribution of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)—unfortunately, he is not in the Chamber. With his experience of the court system, his endorsement that a return to it is not the best way forward was important. He identified three reforms. We shall take them forward.
The hon. Member for Northavon made a careful point about performance targets. We have to examine all social security performance targets to ensure that we assess outcomes rather than using them as a tool to shift work that is inaccurate and inefficient, and leads to repetition later. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that work is under way.
We aim to bring forward proposals by the summer which will improve the CSA, encourage parents to fulfil their emotional and financial responsibilities, and, crucially, put children first. I therefore hope that the House will support the Government amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 296.

Division No. 157]
[6.59 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Chidgey, David


Baker, Norman
Cotter, Brian


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brake, Tom
Fearn, Ronnie


Brand, Dr Peter
Foster, Don (Bath)


Breed, Colin
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gorrie, Donald


Burnett, John
Harris, Dr Evan


Burstow, Paul
Harvey, Nick


Cable, Dr Vincent
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)





Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Keetch, Paul
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Kirkwood, Archy
Wallace, James


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Webb, Steve



Welsh, Andrew


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wilkinson, John


Moore, Michael
Willis, Phil


Oaten, Mark



Öpik, Lembit
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rendel, David
Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Adrian Sanders.


Russell, Bob (Colchester)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ainger, Nick
(Copeland)


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Darvill, Keith


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Atkins, Charlotte
Davidson, Ian


Austin, John
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Barnes, Harry
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Bayley, Hugh
Dean, Mrs Janet


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Denham, John


Begg, Miss Anne
Dismore, Andrew


Bennett, Andrew F
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Benton, Joe
Donohoe, Brian H


Berry, Roger
Doran, Frank


Best, Harold
Dowd, Jim


Blackman, Liz
Drew, David


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Drown, Ms Julia


Blears, Ms Hazel
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Edwards, Huw


Borrow, David
Efford, Clive


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradshaw, Ben
Ennis, Jeff


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fatchett, Derek


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Buck, Ms Karen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Burgon, Colin
Flynn, Paul


Butler, Mrs Christine
Follett, Barbara


Caborn, Richard
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foulkes, George


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galbraith, Sam


Canavan, Dennis
Galloway, George


Caplin, Ivor
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Casale, Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Caton, Martin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cawsey, Ian
Godsiff, Roger


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Goggins, Paul


Chaytor, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clark, Dr Lynda
Grocott, Bruce


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Grogan, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Ann
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coaker, Vernon
Healey, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coleman, Iain
Hepburn, Stephen


Colman, Tony
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hesford, Stephen


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corbett, Robin
Hill, Keith


Corston, Ms Jean
Home Robertson, John


Crausby, David
Hope, Phil


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cummings, John
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)






Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Howells, Dr Kim
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Hoyle, Lindsay
Martlew, Eric


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Meale, Alan


Hurst, Alan
Michael, Alun


Hutton, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Milburn, Alan


Illsley, Eric
Miller, Andrew


Ingram, Adam
Mitchell, Austin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Moffatt, Laura


Jamieson, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Jenkins, Brian
Moran, Ms Margaret


Johnson, Miss Melanie
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


(Welwyn Hatfield)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Morley, Elliot


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Jones, Ms Jenny
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


(Wolverh'ton SW)
Mountford, Kali


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Mudie, George


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Mullin, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Norris, Dan


Khabra, Piara S
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
O'Hara, Eddie


Laxton, Bob
Olner, Bill


Lepper, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


Levitt, Tom
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Linton, Martin
Pearson, Ian


Lock, David
Pendry, Tom


Love, Andrew
Pickthall, Colin


McAllion, John
Pike, Peter L


McAvoy, Thomas
Plaskitt, James


McCabe, Steve
Pollard, Kerry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Pond, Chris


McFall, John
Pope, Greg


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Pound, Stephen


McIsaac, Shona
Powell, Sir Raymond


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Primarolo, Dawn


McLeish, Henry
Prosser, Gwyn


McNamara, Kevin
Purchase, Ken


McNulty, Tony
Quin, Ms Joyce


Mactaggart, Fiona
Radice, Giles


McWalter, Tony
Rapson, Syd


McWilliam, John
Raynsford, Nick


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Mallaber, Judy
Rooney, Terry


Mandelson, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marek, Dr John
Rowlands, Ted


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Roy, Frank


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Ruane, Chris



Ruddock, Ms Joan



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)



Ryan, Ms Joan



Salter, Martin



Savidge, Malcolm



Sawford, Phil





Sedgemore, Brian
Tipping, Paddy


Sheerman, Barry
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Trickett, Jon


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Truswell, Paul


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Miss Geraldine
Vis, Dr Rudi


(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Watts, David


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
White, Brian


Snape, Peter
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Soley, Clive
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Squire, Ms Rachel
(Swansea W)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)



Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Steinberg, Gerry
Wills, Michael


Stevenson, George
Winnick, David


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wise, Audrey


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wood, Mike


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wray, James


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann
Wyatt, Derek


(Dewsbury)



Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Clive Betts.


Timms, Stephen

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that all children have the right to the support of both parents wherever they may live, that the previous Government failed to set up an effective system of child support through the Child Support Agency because the CSA was introduced in a hasty and ill thought out manner, that the current child support formula is complex, difficult for parents to understand, and slow, inaccurate and expensive to deliver, that the result is that the CSA has failed to increase the proportion of parents who pay regular maintenance for their children and that 70 per cent. of parents with care are refusing to co-operate with the CSA and 60 per cent. of non-resident parents either pay no maintenance or only pay sporadically, and that the receipt of regular maintenance is an important part of the Government's strategy of tackling child poverty; and welcomes the fact that the Government is looking closely at all areas of the child support system to ensure that it is consistent, fair and efficient and that it expects to bring forward its proposals by the summer.

Railways

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I must inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg to move,
That this House notes that rail privatisation by the Conservative Government has been a disaster, failing on many routes to deliver customer satisfaction, reliability or an integrated service; and therefore calls on the Government to work with the regulator to set and enforce standards, withhold grants in cases of persistent failure, and bring forward policies to deliver investment in a safe, reliable and affordable rail system at the heart of an integrated sustainable transport strategy.
This is an important debate. As a nation, we travel to work on trains, we go to see our friends on the train, we conduct our business by train. The train network is and remains an integral part of British daily life. It will become even more important in future as we strive to cut the number of unnecessary car journeys. The arguments against rising car use are well rehearsed and I shall not go into too much detail now. The debate on the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill showed the cross-party consensus on the issue, although regrettably, Conservative Front Benchers oppose national targets for cutting unnecessary car use.
Car ownership is predicted to increase by as much as 40 per cent., and many roads and motorways are already at capacity. The rail network is vital to reducing the resulting congestion and air pollution. Rail can take a bigger proportion of travellers and freight, but will not do so if we cannot make it more attractive and reliable.
The apparently easy task of getting from A to B by train is often far from simple. I say that as one of the Members who has the furthest to travel, and regularly does so by train using the relatively good Great Western service. Still, I have seen the problems and I know from talking to the hard-working staff that they have seen them too.
For too many people, rail travel is a time-consuming, costly, unreliable and confusing process. A cursory flick through the national press of the past few months confirms this: "Privatisation comes off the rails"; "Rail companies attacked for poor service"; "Rail companies told to shape up"; "Rail complaints rise"; "Rail fares rise as service declines". These have all been national newspaper headlines since privatisation.
Meanwhile some people have reaped a bonanza: "£400 million profit", read the headlines as Porterbrook directors got rich when the rail leasing firm was sold to Stagecoach. No wonder the National Audit Office is investigating whether the Government have really achieved value for money in the brave new world of post-privatisation transport competition.
Is that really what the Conservative Government had in mind when they went ahead with one of the most ill-judged privatisations of recent years? They may have promised us an improved, cheaper and more efficient service, but that is not what we got. Liberal Democrats opposed the Conservative Government's privatisation; we never believed that it would deliver quality of service to rail users or the investment that the rail network needed.
We wanted to develop new investment partnerships with the private sector. We suggested opening up routes to private operators if the public sector would not or could not make that investment, but we did not believe that privatisation was the solution—and we have been proved right.
Taking the rail service industry back into public hands is now impractical—that horse has bolted. It is simply too expensive; and 18 years of Tory mismanagement have left many other services crumbling for want of cash: schools, hospitals and public housing, for instance. There are vast demands for public sector investment.
Government intervention cannot make the system perfect, either. Whoever owns the railways, we know that there will never be 100 per cent. punctuality and reliability—any more than car drivers can expect to have a good idea of when they will arrive in London from Cornwall. That form of transport is even less punctual and reliable—a point I often make to those who criticise the railways. There will always be a tree that falls on the line, a lorry that crashes into a bridge. The problems of the rail service today go far beyond all that.
A prime example would be bad management, which is when the Government have an obligation to intervene. The debacle of the cancellations of South West Trains last year is a case in point—cutting the number of train drivers to save money to the point where services cannot run because there are not enough drivers is obviously unacceptable. It was indeed the worst kind of mismanagement.
Never let us forget that the companies are subsidised by the taxpayer, and if services are not delivered owing to bad management decisions, the companies must be effectively penalised. Only when poor service directly equates to poor profits for those companies will things change; that has not yet happened.
The latest figures from the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising show that, compared with the corresponding figures for the previous year, performance figures to the end of 1997 have taken a marked turn for the worse. Punctuality deteriorated on nearly half the reported route groups. That triggered season ticket discounts on six routes: Anglia, Cross Country, Great North Eastern, Great Western, and two west coast train routes, North West and Scotland. Almost one third of all routes failed to meet their passenger charter targets. Great North Eastern, Great Western, Virgin Cross Country and Virgin West Coast Trains performed so badly in terms of punctuality that they were obliged to offer discounts to season ticket holders. They were so bad, in fact, that they had to return the annual basic funding on which they rely.
Reliability indicators were little better. They, too deteriorated on nearly half the routes, triggering season ticket discounts on two routes, Anglia and Regional Railways. Eighteen service groups failed to meet their passenger charter targets. In 1997, companies that performed badly in respect of train cancellations included South West Trains, Anglia, Central, Connex South Central and Connex South Eastern, LTS and Regional Railways North East.
Meanwhile, subsidies have increased vastly, up from £1 billion under British Rail the year before privatisation to about £2 billion now. Despite that, quality standards on many parts of the network are slipping. A tiny minority of customers received refunds—those who experienced the


worst delays and who could afford to buy season tickets, or those who experienced the very worst delays provided that they were not due to natural causes. Even then, they were often entitled only to a percentage of their fare.
Having taken up cases before privatisation, I know from experience that British Rail was often far more generous than many of the present operators in giving such returns. Now, the operators generally work to agreements set through the regulator and will not go beyond those, whereas discretion was often used quite generously in the past if passengers had a genuine cause for complaint.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not also a fact that, because many people travel with more than one rail operator, they find it difficult to pursue a complaint? For example, three operators may have all failed to deliver the rail service that they should have done.

Mr. Taylor: I agree. I was dictating a letter to just such a disgruntled passenger earlier. I have been trying to achieve some acceptance of responsibility, let alone compensation, on the part of three different operators. We have settled for agreeing between ourselves that the system is not working because we seem to be able to make no progress with the complaint. Here, I must congratulate Great Western Trains, which often gives full refunds voluntarily when it believes that a complaint is justified.
The truth is that the majority of passengers who are affected by delays do not come into categories that would entitle them to compensation on most lines and so receive not a penny back. On the contrary, the majority have experienced slipping standards combined with real-terms fare rises.
Anglia Railways, which runs commuter services from Essex and Suffolk to London's Liverpool Street station, produced the worst monthly performance since privatisation, when 37 per cent. of its trains from November to December ran late. Yet, in the first week of January, the company enjoyed a fare increase of 4.3 per cent. above inflation. Indeed, several of the worst performing companies, including Connex South Eastern, Connex South Central and Anglia Railways, increased their fares above the inflation rate early this year.
Faced with poor services and rising prices, the only option available to many customers was to complain, and that they have been doing in droves. Last summer, complaints soared by 96 per cent. They concerned reliability, overcrowding, punctuality, information at stations, the suitability of services and carriage cleanliness. Between June and September, the London regional passenger committee alone dealt with a record 769 complaints.
Also, hon. Members may not be entirely surprised to hear that complaints about Virgin West Coast were among the highest, rising by 83 per cent., while those about Connex South Central were up a massive 158 per cent. A pattern of certain names already seems to be emerging in my speech. Frankly, that is down to bad management.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that he is keen to explore the figures further. I should risk unduly delaying the House if I went through all the figures that are available to show the size of the problem.

Mr. Robert Key: Spare us.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that I shall not do it, but I hope that he will tackle the real problems facing his constituents.
We are talking about bad management made worse by inadequate powers for the regulator and insufficient overall national co-ordination. I do not believe that it is a coincidence that the most heavily penalised rail company, Connex South Eastern, has failed to tackle management issues, such as the high incidence of drivers taking sick leave, or to cope with staff shortages at one of its main repair and maintenance depots. Is it any wonder that South West Trains, another familiar name, which encouraged drivers to take redundancy only to find that it did not have enough left, performed badly during the year in terms of train cancellations? It was fined just over £1.8 million, but in the same financial period it was awarded £1.7 million as a special performance bonus. In other words, for all the disruption and misery caused to passengers by poor management decisions, the company was fined a net £100,000 compared to the annual £63 million subsidy that it is paid by the taxpayer.
The train operating companies would no doubt argue that recent performance levels are better than they were shortly before privatisation, although if one speaks to them they tend to accept that their performance has been inadequate. South West Trains admitted as much to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). It is true that the operating companies took on a difficult job post-privatisation. They are coping with the Conservative backlog of under-investment in rolling stock and infrastructure that will take years to make up.
However, the problems go deeper than that. No passenger who has had to stand on an empty platform, as I and a number of my constituents who have written to me have done, after a connection has left the station minutes before our train arrived, will accept that excuse. The late train that I arrived on was not late enough for the operator to be fined—often, it is a matter of minutes. The operator of the connecting service ensured that it left on time so that it did not risk a fine for running late. The passenger ends up stranded. In the old days, the passenger came first. Station staff had the flexibility to ensure that they met the connection. Now, the passenger is literally left behind and stranded passengers cannot even bask in the thought that the operating company will be penalised for the failure. On the contrary, because both the trains I mentioned were within the time limits, the operators were given a pat on the back and could hope for performance bonuses at the end of the year, as South West Trains discovered.
It is more than two years since the first private operators took over. Privatisation was meant to transform the service, which had been run down before privatisation by massive under-investment. By 1993–94, the year of privatisation, investment had dropped to just £817 million. Those failing train companies are now two years into a seven-year franchise. The major decisions on investment have to be taken early or the short franchises will preclude the value of investing.
The failure to deliver a much better quality service, despite a doubling of state subsidy to £2 billion, is a scandal. Too often, train operating companies are not even


capable of organising the correct information on their services, let alone running them. The regulator's report on national rail inquiries speaks volumes. One in 10 travellers received the wrong information, only one in five inquiries about advance purchase tickets was correctly answered and one third of answers to inquiries about advance Sunday tickets were wrong. I do not know about other hon. Members, but I now have a rule. If I have to phone the National Rail Enquiry Service about a route that I do not know well, I phone twice to find out whether the information is the same—regularly, it is not.
Meanwhile, it is true that Railtrack's performance is improving and that the percentage of occasions on which it causes delays is dropping as the train operating companies' performance deteriorates. However, Railtrack is still responsible for 60 per cent. of passenger delays. While it has had some real success in maintaining the existing network, this year only 18 miles of track—the Heathrow express line—is scheduled for electrification, which is hardly a brave new world for our railways.
We cannot debate this subject without touching on the confusion in London and Continental Railways. If anything can sum up the 18 years of misguided Tory rule, it is the abject failure to get the high-speed link built. Let us look at what the taxpayer handed over: £1.4 billion in cash on delivery; the entire Eurostar operation running through the channel tunnel; hugely valuable land around King's Cross; and even the brand new terminus at Waterloo, which incidentally was built on time and within budget by the publicly owned British Rail, which the Conservatives would not trust to build the high-speed link.
If the Government can find a way of getting the link built, to get car and lorry traffic off the roads, it will help meet their objectives on CO2 and traffic congestion reduction and they will receive the full support of the Liberal Democrats. I hope that the search will be on for private sector partners, since it is hard to see how even more funding can be found from the taxpayer, however much Labour Back Benchers may welcome nationalisation. I have some sympathy for Ministers wrestling with this problem, which was caused by the Tories, but it is not easy to see the solutions. Perhaps Ministers will be able to tell us today of any progress that they have made.
The privatised railway receives hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidy from taxpayers each year, and we expect high-quality services in return.
Those are not my words, but the words of the Minister of Transport, speaking shortly after the general election. We agree, but does the Minister believe that we now have such a high-quality service? If not, are not firm leadership and tough action as overdue as so many of our train arrivals?
The Minister has said that the Government would use all the tools at their disposal to ensure that the public interest always comes first. The Labour party manifesto said that an increase in the number of passengers and amount of freight that was carried by rail was an overriding goal. We welcome and support those objectives but, despite the fact that the debate focuses on the botched privatisation of rail by the Conservative Government, we now have a Labour Government. They have been in office for nine months and have taken almost

no discernible action on this issue. We are promised a White Paper soon and there are endless leaks about what may happen, but it is time for the House to know a little more about the Government's plans and how they will implement them. The Government must answer some key questions today.
The interim package of measures that was introduced in November last year—it is mentioned in the Government's amendment—was announced with a fanfare, but what, if any, changes for the better have resulted? On what occasions and to what effect has the Minister made use of the information provided? Everyone shares the concerns expressed in the so-called concordat with the regulator, but it is not obvious that things have changed in practice—as yet, action is another matter.
The Government said that the realisation of a range of objectives—including ensuring that public subsidies were used to enhance services and maximise value for money, and increasing safety and security from crime for rail users—would require primary legislation. When is such legislation likely to come before the House, as people want early action?
When will there be legislation to establish a new national rail authority, which was one of the pledges in Labour's manifesto? How will the authority work in practice? From the various leaks in the newspapers, it seems that there are plenty of ideas bubbling around, but they are not being debated in the House, as they are not being communicated to the people who will actually have to take the decisions.
How will the Government ensure that there is investment in the rail industry? We have heard much about public-private partnerships, but little detail of what that means. What examples can Ministers point to? More importantly, can they elaborate on the apparently well-briefed article in the Sunday papers that suggested that the Deputy Prime Minister might be winning his battle for change with the Treasury? It is important that we know whether progress is being made.
Liberal Democrats want a doubling of passenger numbers and a trebling of the amount of freight that is carried on Britain's railways; we shall have to make those changes if we are to meet the road traffic reduction targets and tackle global warming. In the longer term, we need to change current incentives—paid for at a huge cost to the taxpayer—for people to have company cars, to jump in their cars more often, to drive further and to own larger cars. Part of the money saved could be invested in public transport.

Mr. Stephen Day: I notice that the hon. Gentleman seems to be coming to the end of his speech. Before he does, will he outline the solutions that Liberal Democrats offer for all those problems? Will he say how his great aims of doubling this and achieving that will be met? Where will the money come from?

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman was clearly thinking about his question; if he had been listening, he would have heard me answer his points just before he spoke. The Conservative party was not noted for listening in government, and I guess that we should not expect too much more from it in opposition.
We believe that a key policy is to ensure that local authorities have enough money to exploit public-private packages and the solutions that they offer in cities.
That could entail funds from road pricing, for example. Moreover, I am glad that the Government announced—I do not know whether the announcement was official—that local authorities will have access to money raised through fines from the enforcement of motor vehicle standards. That money will make a real difference to the investment flow, but that cannot happen until we have sorted out the management and regulation of the private sector companies that are currently making such a botched job of running our railways. It would be quite wrong to add subsidy to subsidy to solve a problem that is largely down to bad management.
I want a virtuous circle of investment and growth in the rail industry. We believe that the regulator's role needs toughening—I am glad that the Government agree, but we need action rather than words. We must encourage investment partnerships between the private and public sectors; again, we need action, not words. We need to co-ordinate a properly integrated rail network to replace the current divided network, which leaves passengers stranded at the station as the train chugs out from another platform.
It is time for the Government to act. The problems in the rail industry will not be solved overnight. The sooner we start, the sooner Britain will have a modern, safe, reliable and affordable rail network. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain how he intends to achieve that.

The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
deplores the previous Government's privatisation of the railways, which has made a large profit for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer and the passenger, and has fragmented the rail network; welcomes the Government's interim package of measures introduced in November 1997—new Objectives, Instructions and Guidance for the Franchising Director, new planning criteria for OPRAF and a Concordat with the Rail Regulator—which puts the interests of rail users first; and commends the Government's commitment to establish effective and accountable regulation and to set up a new rail authority so that passengers' legitimate expectations are met.
I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for this chance to discuss the railways. I certainly welcome the opportunity to expose the mistakes that were made when the railway was privatised, and to highlight the proper role for the railway in an integrated transport policy.
I shall start by reminding the House of the shortcomings of the railway regime that we inherited last May, and shall then set out the Government's transport policy objectives. Finally, I shall describe what we have done, and what we intend to do in the longer term, to tackle the obvious flaws that we inherited.
Rail privatisation damaged the interests of passengers and taxpayers. As we said in our manifesto, it made fortunes for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer. For example, we can contrast the profits that have been made by train operators, Railtrack and the rolling stock companies with the industry's disappointing performance so far.
We inherited a privatisation that was ill thought out and implemented with indecent haste. As a result, mistakes were made, and the weaknesses of the system are clear for all to see. The extreme fragmentation of the industry will not benefit the passenger in the short or long term.
There is no focus for strategic planning or investment in the railway industry. The railways will receive £1.8 billion in passenger grants this year, which is more than 50 per cent. higher in real terms than the average grant paid to British Rail in the five years from 1989 to 1994. However, there is no mechanism for taking a long-term view of passenger and freight companies' plans and assessing whether they match the public interest.
This is not a commercial matter that can be left entirely to the fragmented rail industry. There is no reason why the sum of the plans produced by all the train operators and Railtrack should produce the best result for the user and the taxpayer. An overall vision is needed, but it is sadly lacking at present. That is an important reason why we need a national rail authority. Such an authority becomes all the more important if we are serious about promoting an integrated and sustainable transport strategy that will make rail an increasingly attractive alternative to cars and lorries.
The fragmentation of the industry has hindered planning and integration at the local and regional level. Local authorities that want to promote rail schemes and service improvements have had to pick their way through a maze of bodies and contracts.
More positively, passenger mileage has increased by 7 per cent. in the past year, reflecting the growth in the economy. However, not all the privatised train operators are delivering improved service standards. I do not say that all services have got worse, but the picture is decidedly patchy, as the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell effectively argued. Passengers have a right to expect better overall performance. The franchising director recently said that
performance levels generally continue to concern and disappoint me.
We are not talking only about overcrowding, punctuality and reliability. The House will not need reminding of the well-publicised failures in such key aspects of integrated transport as ticketing and passenger information. We should consider how important it is to have simple and reliable information about fares and then contrast that with the present confusion.
Since privatisation, those fares that are not regulated have been shooting up and down. I am not against train operators being innovative and offering a good product, but part of the legacy of fragmentation has been to make it harder for people to know what fares are available. The appalling early performance of the National Rail Enquiry Service has not helped.
We also inherited a hotchpotch of responsibilities split between the franchising director and the Rail Regulator. More importantly, the powers available to the regulatory authorities are insufficient. The existing sanctions available under the Railways Act 1993 are complex, take a long time to implement and allow only limited scope for financial penalties on operators. Penalties can be avoided altogether by an operator who takes swift corrective action after a contractual breach has occurred.
Regulation is another fundamental weakness in the railway regime. Railtrack, a monopoly supplier, was soon judged by the regulator to be inadequately regulated. It got off to a slow start, building up a significant backlog of investment, and in January 1997 the Rail Regulator condemned as wholly unacceptable Railtrack's £700 million investment shortfall. When we took office,


we also found great concern that Railtrack was not responsive to proposals for increasing capacity, especially for rail freight.
The key rolling stock leasing companies—the ROSCOs—are not regulated at all, but we hear frequent complaints about their performance.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the way in which Railtrack has confused maintenance and capital investment? It is important that the public should realise that Railtrack—unlike British Rail, which made it clear what was investment and what was maintenance—is confusing the figures so neatly that, even taking into account the inadequate sums that my right hon. Friend mentioned, it is clear that the company is not performing properly. It should be required to be far more transparent.

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes an important point based on her experience and knowledge of the industry. It is true that we need higher investment in the railways and we look to Railtrack to deliver that.
We found on taking office that the sale of British Rail's channel tunnel business, Railfreight Distribution, was in limbo, awaiting clearance from the European Commission; there was no national strategy for giving freight a sufficient priority on the network; and we discovered a long history of underspending of even the modest budgets set aside by the previous Administration for rail freight grants.
I have described the flawed regime that we inherited in May. Over the past nine months, we have started the task of ensuring that rail plays a full part in an integrated transport policy. We regard our railway as a national asset, and one that we need to make better use of. The concept of an integrated transport policy has captured people's imagination, showing the importance of transport and the dissatisfaction with the current situation. The public mood for change reinforced our determination to launch last June a fundamental review of transport policy.
Our objectives are clear. They are to provide for a strong and sustainable economy, to achieve a more inclusive society, and to protect and improve the environment. We are not looking at transport in isolation. We are considering the links between transport and wider Government objectives and policies, for example, on health, sustainable development and social exclusion.
It is clear that the car and the lorry will remain an integral part of our society and that the road network will play a crucial part in people's lives, but we want to reduce car dependency. The forecast growth in road traffic of between a third and a half by 2016 is unacceptable because of its wider consequences. We must learn to strike a better balance between the various modes of transport.
I shall say a few words about what we have achieved so far. On 6 November 1997, I announced three new measures to boost investment, protect passengers' rights and ensure that private rail operators provide high-quality services. First, we issued the franchising director with new objectives which deal with the real issues that matter most to passengers—investment in decent rolling stock and stations, high standards of punctuality and reliability, and the protection of passenger rights.
The overriding priority left to the franchising director by the previous Government was to privatise rail services as quickly as possible. The new objectives make it the franchising director's principal aim to win more passengers on to the railway, to ensure improvements in the quality of rail services and to manage franchise contracts tightly in the public interest. In short, they make passengers' interests paramount. That is especially the case in respect of enforcement action by the franchising director. When contravention of a franchise agreement is material, the franchising director is to take prompt action that secures additional benefits as compensation for passengers. In other words, the passenger benefits rather than just the Exchequer. In more extreme cases, the franchising director is to have recourse to his powers to make enforcement notices specifying fines.
The new guidance to the franchising director is beginning to bring results. For example, he has today announced that he has secured measures to alleviate the serious overcrowding that is affecting key parts of the Connex South Central services. As soon as it became clear that Connex would exceed the load factors in the franchise agreement, the franchising director directed Connex to provide additional capacity quickly. The measures agreed with the franchising director include the allocation of higher-capacity rolling stock, the leasing of additional units, and the lengthening of some trains. The additional capacity is to be fully in place by April.
The franchising director has said that he intends to ensure that all the London commuter operators take swift action to reduce severe overcrowding, where network capacity is available. He has assured me that he will continue to require urgent action if train operators might breach their load factor limits.
The new objectives emphasise the importance of improving the security of rail passengers, not least of women, for whom personal security is a significant issue. The objectives also refer to the promotion of the use of bicycles, and the need to ensure, as far as possible, that the railway provides suitable facilities for cyclists.
The new objectives for the franchising director also make investment a priority. With that in mind, I set out on 6 November a set of planning criteria that will provide an effective framework for developing and implementing worthwhile rail investment, which will improve the range and quality of the services available to rail users. We have asked the franchising director to ensure that local authorities and other potential promoters of rail investment are given clear and well-publicised advice on the mechanism for appraising and delivering new investment.
The third element in our interim railways package, which I announced on 6 November, is a voluntary concordat between Ministers and the Rail Regulator. Firm, fair and accountable regulation is essential for passengers and for the industry on which they depend. We inherited a regulatory structure which—remarkably lid not give the regulator any formal indication of what the Government wanted for the railways. The concordat bridges that gap.
We welcomed the Rail Regulator's voluntary agreement with Railtrack last year, which amended its licence so that the regulator could better ensure that Railtrack invests in the network at the right levels and for the best results. If it proves necessary, we will not


hesitate to tighten regulation by legislation. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has also asked the Rail Regulator to undertake a thorough and fundamental examination of all the issues raised by the current arrangements for the supply of rolling stock to train operating companies.

Mr. Richard Allan: Before the Minister finishes listing the Government's achievements, can he tell the House what they have done about the national rail inquiry line? The Minister correctly identified the inquiry line as a major problem. I have found that I need a four-call approach—the first two to get different prices, the third to be told that the service does not exist and the fourth directly to the train operating company to get the true answer. What have the Government done about that major problem at the first point of contact with the railway system?

Dr. Strang: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have raised the issue with the Rail Regulator several times. We have been informed that the service is improving, and when I have used it I have found it to be satisfactory. However, I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments and I will draw them to the attention of the Rail Regulator. The hon. Gentleman should understand that we have to operate within the current legislative framework and it is up to the Rail Regulator to enforce the measures necessary to improve that vital service.
The Government expect the rolling stock companies, and the rest of the industry, to promote the use and development of the railway in the way that best meets the needs of passengers and taxpayers. We have already taken action to boost the take-up of freight grants.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: On rolling stock, given that the franchisees—the train operating companies—show reluctance to invest as their franchises near the end of a period, will the new regulatory powers that the Government have taken in relation to the rolling stock companies be used to ensure that ROSCOs take risks by investing in new rolling stock against a guarantee that future franchises will require future franchisees to take on rolling stock that has been purchased by the current franchisee or ROSCO in the event that the franchise passes from one company to another?

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The franchise system depends on the ROSCOs. That is why my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced that the regulator will examine the position of ROSCOs and consider what additional regulatory measures may be required. The regulator is to report back by mid-April, which will give us plenty of opportunity to take a decision on that in advance of any legislation that we may introduce. The Government expect the rolling stock companies and the rest of the industry to promote the use and development of the railway in the way that best meets the needs of passengers and taxpayers.
We have already taken action to boost the take-up of freight grants. We have published new guidance for prospective applicants that cuts through much of the previous red tape. Last year, the Government spent £15 million on direct freight grants; the budget this year is £30 million, almost all of which is likely to be taken up. For 1998–99, despite public expenditure pressures, we

have increased funding to £40 million. That is what I meant when I said at Question Time that when it comes to freight, this Government put their money where their mouth is.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I am listening carefully, but the Minister has not yet said specifically what the Government intend to do to drive freight haulage off the roads and on to the rail system. It is obvious that road haulage is responsible for many accidents and delays on the roads.

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. We have massively increased the opportunity to take up grants for investment in rail freight. I shall explain the progress that we have made in respect of the channel tunnel. He would agree that the channel tunnel, if nothing else, should drive more freight on to the railways.

Mr. Day: Does the Minister agree that saying that the Government should take measures to move transport from lorries and on to rail is an oversimplification? Are not the majority of heavy goods vehicle journeys 40 miles or less? If such lorry movements were discouraged, many lorries would have to travel further to get to rail heads.

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is right that the railway comes into its own only for longer journeys, unless there is a dedicated arrangement such as those that used to exist between collieries and electricity power stations. For the normal network, rail is economically viable only for reasonably long journeys. The House will agree that there is great scope for many fairly long journeys that currently go by road to go by rail.
At European level in December, the United Kingdom and French Governments, the railways—Railfreight Distribution and SNCF—and Eurotunnel agreed arrangements to facilitate the development of rail freight traffic through the tunnel and beyond, not only by Railfreight Distribution but by potential new entrants to the market.
The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell mentioned the future of the channel tunnel rail link. I am glad that he agrees that it would not have been right to give another £1.2 billion to London and Continental Railways. I think that the House appreciated that the Deputy Prime Minister came straight away that evening to explain the situation. The position is that LCR has been given 30 days. In that time, it is possible for it to produce a revised proposal to enable the link to be built. We want a fast link, as my right hon. Friend made clear. The hon. Gentleman will understand that while those negotiations are continuing, as they are, it would be inappropriate for a Minister to say any more than what was said when my right hon. Friend made his announcement.
Much has been achieved over the past nine months, but what we have been able to do has inevitably been limited by the current legal framework. For example, our commitment to create a new rail authority requires legislation. We will work up the details of our proposals for inclusion in the White Paper on transport in the spring.
Our White Paper will also set out how we intend to ensure a high standard of safety across all modes of transport. Railways already have a good safety record. The latest figures published by the Health and Safety


Executive show that the improving trend was maintained in 1996–97. However, as the tragedy in Southall and last week's near miss at Paddington remind us, safety on the railways must be pursued with energy and vigilance. The railway inspectorate's last annual report revealed that some operators have tried to reduce safety levels to the minimum allowed, saying that maintaining, or improving on, the status quo is too costly. The House will agree that there can be no question of putting profit before safety. We look to the independent Health and Safety Commission, as the safety regulator, to ensure that standards are maintained, and improved where necessary. Last month, I wrote to the chairman of the commission making it clear that he should bring forward any formal proposals on automatic train protection and mark I rolling stock that the commission considers necessary. We will, of course, consult the commission on our legislative proposals for the railways.
We will also work in partnership with the railway companies where it is in the public interest. For example, Railtrack's investment in security and station regeneration provides opportunities for partnership locally and nationally. We also want to encourage the best examples of transport integration by the new operators. For example, integrated rail-bus ticketing and information provision was introduced in the west midlands in October. The scheme involves 50 bus companies and six train operators in the region, making it probably the largest example of integrated ticketing outside the London travelcard area.
The areas for action on railways that I have described will complement our wider plans for developing an integrated transport strategy. The White Paper will set out a strategic framework for sustainable transport policy for this Parliament and beyond. We are determined to establish a new framework to enable rail to play a full role in overall transport policy. We shall not hesitate to take action to remedy the defects that I have described.

Mrs. Betty Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plight of disabled people? We talk about integrated transport policy; for some, that meant that they could put their invalid cars on trains. A constituent, since rail privatisation, has been unable to do that. We must recognise the plight and rights of disabled people. That is what equality really means.

Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend raises an important point. On the disabled, the House will agree that we need to move forward on every transport mode, including the railways.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: This is a crucial point. I have a constituent who was travelling with more than one operator and so was unable to discover whether it was possible to be met at unstaffed stations or to come back. No one could give a guarantee on that to my constituent.

Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If he provides me with details of the case, I will write to him.
Train operators have entered freely into competitive contracts that said that they needed to provide a good and improving service. The public have a right to expect

decent, clean, safe and reliable services. We are determined to ensure by effective and accountable regulation that the industry delivers that continuous improvement in the quality of services.
There is a consensus that we want more people and goods to travel by rail. For reasons of economy, safety and the environment, there is a powerful case for increasing the role of the railways in our transport system, for both passengers and freight. We have already taken steps to put rail users first. In the coming months, we intend to build on that progress and provide a railway of which we can be proud.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: We start the debate from the fairly bizarre position that the real Opposition are in the business of defending one of Britain's great national assets against attack from the Government and their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.
I start from the fundamental premise that, at the moment, the privatised rail service is not performing as well as we would wish, but its long-term future is not just good, but excellent. We believe that Labour and the Liberal Democrats were wrong to oppose the privatisation of the railways, and that by the next general election they will defend that policy. They will do so by claiming that, having moved round a few deckchairs and having imposed a few extra burdens on the private sector, the improvements already in the pipeline will have occurred only as a result of their shuffling of the pack.
At first sight, no one can accuse the Liberal Democrats of inconsistency. Their motion attacks my party for introducing rail privatisation. It is clear that they feel that they are still fighting the previous election rather than looking to the future, unlike the Conservatives. A closer reading of the Liberal Democrat motion, however, reveals that there has been an important and subtle shift in that party's position. It likes to portray itself as being committed to a market-based, competitive economy, yet in reality it remains an inherently interventionist party, committed to public ownership.
The Liberal Democrats' socialist tendencies towards state ownership are most vividly illustrated by their commitment to retain public control of Railtrack. In their 1995 policy document, entitled "Transporting People", they stated:
The Liberal Democrats would re-acquire a controlling interest in Railtrack.
That was reiterated in their 1997 manifesto, in which they said that they would provide for the legislation to do so. According to tonight's motion, however, it seems that the Liberal Democrats have subtly abandoned that commitment, because they simply call on the Government to
bring forward polices to deliver investment in a safe, reliable and affordable rail system".
The last dinosaur has gone. One of the great achievements of the Conservative party in the past 18 years was the destruction of socialism. We have now achieved a double whammy by bringing the Liberal Democrat party into the 20th century, and we are pleased to take the credit for that.
I do not believe that anyone would seriously argue for the renationalisation of anything in the private sector. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister is desperately


trying to take over Eurostar, but I suspect that the Treasury might spoil his urge to have a live train set to play with.
I should like to set out why we believe privatisation works. The effects of state ownership and control of nationalised industries were devastating. Those industries performed poorly. They were the creatures of politicians and their officials, who were, in turn, remote from customers and employees alike. Those industries were under the iron grip of the Treasury. There was a lack of motivation, because managements were unable to motivate their work forces with proper incentives. Civil servants were drawn into the role of management. Perhaps the worst aspect of state ownership was the massive misallocation of public money through state-directed investment, which responded to but never quite met the demands of the state, industry, management or the trade unions.
A few figures illustrate the impact of privatisation. Between 1983 and 1985, public investment in gas, electricity and water averaged £2.7 billion. Just seven years later, in 1991–92, when all three were in private hands, investment had more than doubled—an increase significantly greater than the rise in the retail prices index. Privatisation has given the consumer greater choice and value. It has also promoted wider share ownership, giving ordinary people a direct stake in the success of British industry.

Mr. Norman Baker: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the privatisation of the railways has been perfect in every way? If not, what mistakes will he now admit to?

Mr. Ottaway: The jury is still out on that, but I shall be quite candid—I believe that in the long term it will be a success, and I intend to set out exactly why.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell the House what he means by long term? Does he mean within this Parliament, this year, within the next decade or in the foreseeable future? That improvement seems to be long delayed, like those in many of the services to which he is attached.

Mr. Ottaway: I am glad that the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip was able to get his intervention in for the benefit of Hansard.

Mr. Paul Keetch: That was a cheap shot.

Mr. Ottaway: If anything is talking of cheap shots, it is the terms of the motion.
I believe that in six years' time there will be a clear and demonstrable improvement in services, which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and everyone in the House will happily defend.
The real success of privatisation has been the realisation of management's ability in the privatised sector to respond to the challenge of coping with the pressures that are part and parcel of being in the private sector. Not unsurprisingly, not a single senior management team in any of the more than 100 privatised companies would prefer to return to state ownership. No one seriously believes that companies such as British Airways or British

Telecom should return to the public sector. Even the Labour party has dropped the rhetoric that the only reason for not doing so is the cost involved. It now admits that it was wrong.
I suspect that the Labour Government are now embarrassed by the comments of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is well known for saying:
British Airways would be the pantomime horse of capitalism if it is anything at all.
It was the Liberal Democrat energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), now the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman—he is not here today—who said during the electricity privatisation debate that privatisation would
"result in higher prices for the whole population and especially for those on low incomes."
When he turned his hand to the Gas Bill, he said:
16 million British gas consumers can expect only one result—to pay increased gas prices, higher than the rate of inflation, for years to come."—[Official Report, 10 December 1985; Vol. 88, c. 793.]
As the Liberal Democrats wipe the egg off their faces, let us consider what the Prime Minister said of electricity privatisation when he was Opposition energy spokesman:
the idea that we will have an influx of power stations, all competing on the grid, is nonsense."—[Official Report, 12 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 683.]
He was, of course, right in one respect—his recent decision to stop any more gas-fired power stations coming on to the grid is his attempt to make that quite ridiculous remark a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party will also be wrong about the privatised railways. It is easy, but wrong to conclude that the present state of affairs on the railways represents the way in which services will continue—it is just a snapshot. It is no surprise that the railways should be struggling at the moment, because all industries have struggled in the first couple of years after their privatisation. In 1985, The Observer ran an article about British Telecom under the heading:
Telecom fails to raise tone
and the sub-heading:
Victor Smart reports on how BT's image and its service to the public have fared in the year since privatisation.
A year later, the Financial Times said:
Almost two thirds of large companies believe that British Telecom's services have either deteriorated or stayed the same since privatisation, according to a survey".
It is no surprise that in these early days of rail privatisation, the railways are getting a bad press. A bad patch at the beginning is a common feature of every privatisation.

Sir Robert Smith: Given that we are discussing transport, the hon. Gentleman might want to hone in on one of our domestic transport issues. Can he outline for us when bus privatisation will prove a success?

Mr. Ottaway: The Liberal Democrats are grubbing around to make interventions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will not go into detail about the buses. All I know is that more passengers are travelling more miles, on cheaper, more efficient and better-quality buses than ever was the case before privatisation.
The latest figures from the Rail Regulator confirm that Britain's 25 private train operators are still achieving performance figures above those attained before privatisation, despite the slight fall in performance improvement shown in the regulator's bulletin. Those independent figures directly refute the misleading allegation that train services are now worse than they were before privatisation.
Although we acknowledge the disappointing trend for the past quarter, overall performance levels are noticeably better than those recorded between 1993 and 1995 under British Rail and those in 1995–96 during the process of privatisation. Accusations that service levels have declined since the completion of privatisation in March 1997 are irrelevant, as more than half the franchises were in the private sector by October 1996, when performances were improving.
One cannot deny the fact that the new railways are performing better than their predecessors. More train services are being run; 8 per cent. more passenger journeys are being made every year; and there has been a welcome increase of 7 per cent. in passenger mileage. The true picture is that the railways are growing. The train operators are investing heavily, adding new services, providing new routes and building a better railway for the future.
The wave of facts speaks for itself. When in opposition, Labour tried to argue that the level of subsidy would go on rising; in truth, the contractual payment to franchisees falls from today's level to zero by 2005, at which time the franchisees start to repay the Government, and by 2011, they will be paying the Government nearly quarter of a billion pounds a year as a negative franchise payment. Labour said that services would be cut, but the opposite is true: there are 138 extra trains a day and 29,000 extra trains a year, with an increase in the number of train miles of 2.1 per cent.
Labour said that fares would rise, but they have fallen every year: in 1995, the rail fare component in the retail prices index was 4.4 per cent., in 1996, it was 3.7 per cent. and in 1997 2.3 per cent. In 1998, the figure will be near the RPI increase, but all will welcome the 7.5 per cent. cut in Thameslink's fares this year. In 1999, overall fares will fall by 1 per cent. per annum. Compare that with the 45 per cent. fare increase between 1980 and 1995. When in opposition, Labour said that freight on the railways would be eliminated, but the long-term decline in freight has been reversed, with English, Welsh and Scottish Railways—the UK's largest rail freight operator—aiming to triple rail freight's market share in the next 10 years. There are 280 locomotives and at least 2,500 new wagons on order, leading to the reopening of the Thrall works in York to meet the demand of new investment.
It would be helpful to look at an independent assessment of the train operators' performance, and no one could provide a more objective assessment than the chairman of the central rail users consultative committee, who from the outset makes it clear that, as a statutory body representing the interests of rail users, the committee was impartial and neither for nor against rail privatisation.
Its concern has been to speak up for and protect the passenger. In his 1997 statement, the chairman said:
this is the year when more people use the trains again—by up to 8 per cent. With new money, both public and private, new rules and incentives, a new structure to give greater freedom to act and many new people involved".
He rightly draws attention to the hullabaloo surrounding the industry as it battles to deliver the services that the nation expects. He continues:
The rapid transfer from BR has been accompanied, though at lower volume, by the debate on the pros and cons of privatisation with criticism always loudest and leading to the distortion of the real issues; sadly, one swallow is still enough to make a summer".
He poses two questions: first, has the basis been laid for the reinvigoration of our railways; and, secondly, is this the new age of the train and will the continuous loss of market share for both rail and public transport be reversed at last? I believe that the answer to both those questions is yes.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The right hon. Gentleman quotes that gentleman with such approval, but can he tell us whether the members of the committee are elected and, if not, by whom are they appointed? How wide is the representation of women and young people? If it is true that, by accident, there is a large number of retired members of the Conservative party on the committee, can he explain that?

Mr. Ottaway: I am told that the Labour party has always supported the committee. I believe that appointments are made by the Government, and if the hon. Lady is volunteering for the job, I am sure that the Minister has heard her plea—that might be the solution to his problems.
In answering the two questions posed by the chairman of the central rail users consultative committee, one has only to look at the level of investment and the management of that investment to realise the naivety of the motion in urging the Government to introduce policies to deliver investment. The level of current investment in the railways is staggering and makes a mockery of the claims of the Government and their coalition partners that the railways are in crisis. Over the next 10 years, Railtrack plans to spend more than £10 billion, with more than £2 billion on renewing track, more than £2 billion on signalling modernisation schemes and more than £2 billion on structures and stations.
Many hon. Members present will have been to the all-party west line group meeting a couple of weeks ago to hear a presentation from Railtrack and Virgin. The effects of the proposed £600 million improvement of the line will be dramatic: it currently takes five hours and 20 minutes to get from London to Glasgow; in four years' time, it will be four hours and 20 minutes; and in seven years' time, it will be three hours and 50 minutes—I hope that that answers the earlier intervention by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Most revealing of all was the companies' assertion that it is current rolling stock that causes 90 per cent. of unreliability—replace the rolling stock and


the quality of service improves. That is a tribute to the policy of privatisation and it is why such policies will work.

Mr. Phil Willis: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way.

Mr. Ottaway: It is just honourable.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) called him right honourable—I am glad that he has been demoted.
On the question of investment, I live in the Harrogate area and regularly use the Harrogate to York line. Users of that line suffer constant delays and interruptions to services. We have the most appalling 30-year-old rolling stock, and the reason why the company will not invest in new rolling stock is the seven-year franchise of which the hon. Gentleman seems so proud. How are we going to get companies to invest millions of pounds in new rolling stock, on seven-year franchises?

Mr. Ottaway: Not by renationalisation, which is what the hon. Gentleman's party wanted until the election.
In respect of the west coast line, the imminent announcement of a £500 million investment in 55 tilting trains is welcome. Already, Virgin's passenger numbers are up as a result of marketing never envisaged by the old British Rail. Under the old regime, the Treasury would never have allowed Virgin its new £15 single fare from Euston to Glasgow. If anything gets people off the road and on to the railways, it will be a positive approach like that. When the industry was nationalised, the Treasury would have insisted on a fare rise to help out with the public sector borrowing requirement. That is the benefit of being unleashed from the Treasury. That is why I believe that the chairman of the central rail users consultative committee can be reassured that the answer to both his questions is yes.
It should come as no surprise that John Welsby, the British Rail chairman, said only four weeks ago in the Sir Robert Reid lecture:
The privatisation regime has swept aside the debilitating uncertainty of the annual public expenditure round; investment programmes can be planned over several years forward with much greater confidence; and there is greater freedom for the participants to make use of financing mechanisms such as leasing which are standard practice in the private sector but which were denied to the public sector corporations.
He continued:
If, as a public corporation, BR had been granted the scale of Government funding which is now committed, the promises of continuity that have been made, and the flexibility that now exists to make use of the array of commercial financing mechanisms, we would have thought that the millennium had not only arrived early but had also brought with it the sort of glorious benefaction that is the stuff of dreams.

Mr. Keetch: Tosh.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman says "Tosh," but those are the words of the man whom the Deputy Prime Minister has just appointed special adviser on the railways.
Hon. Members may ask, "If the railways are so good, why is it that I don't know about it?" The truth is that good-news railway stories are simply not being reported.
I have here—or at least I did have—a list of 100 new initiatives for a better passenger railway system from the train operators. Sadly, not one has been reported. I say to Labour and Liberal Democrat Members: it is dangerous to believe that what one reads in the newspapers is what is happening on the railways. It is not.
The rebirth of and renewed interest in new railways is prompting a new excitement. The Wensleydale Railway Association wants to restore 18 of the 40 miles of railway line from Northallerton in Yorkshire to Garsdale. That is a unique, imaginative and fresh idea, which deserves to succeed. Its desire to lay track on old BR routes where the existing tracks have been removed by local authorities shows a spirit of enterprise that could never have existed under the old regime.
Elsewhere, one of the most successful reinstatements of a route that has long been closed to passengers has been the Nottingham to Worksop Robin Hood line, reopened in stages since 1993. The successful implementation of such a project, involving the co-operation of local authorities and other parties outside the industry, is doubly commendable.
New services can be expected. North West Trains is promoting a through service, direct from Manchester airport to London Euston. In the midlands, the Birmingham to Rudgley town service, already considerably developed over recent years, is to be extended through to Stafford. Great Western Trains and Thames Trains are co-operating on a joint venture that will see a through passenger service introduced between Bristol Temple Meads and Oxford. Through my constituency, Connex South Central is introducing an additional hourly London Victoria to Brighton fast service.
The wording of the motion is lacking in vision, ignorant of the past and without an understanding of the future. The Conservative party is the party with the clarity and understanding of management and business today. It introduced a policy that is turning one of Britain's great national assets, which used to struggle manfully but always just fail, into a service that will match the success of other privatised industries—that is something of which the nation will, in time, be proud.
The decline of the railways started in the previous generation, as illustrated by the Beeching cuts. Now, when we consider the ambitions of the promoters of the Robin Hood line and the Wensleydale line, we realise that it is the Conservative party that has reversed the trend, bringing life and quality of service back to our railways. Its actions are bringing out the best of the private sector, private management and private finance. I urge the House to treat this squalid little motion with the contempt that it deserves and to ignore it.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I did enjoy that speech. I had not realised that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) had such a delightful sense of humour. I know that it must be complicated for him to take over such a case in the House at present, but his speech was very engaging. The fact that it bore no relationship to anything, let alone reality, pleased me enormously. We should have more amusing speeches like that in the House of Commons.
To look at the matter seriously is to consider a railway system that is now in a total state of fragmentation and chaos. If I have one thing to say tonight to my hon. Friend


the Minister, it is that I welcome the fact that the Government have taken urgent action to look at what is happening in the railway industry, to consider the means of putting it together in a usable form and to promise to come forward, not only with a White Paper, but with clear plans for the strategic rail authority.
The same John Welsby who has been quoted in the debate is worth quoting in another way. In a beautiful document, the British Railways Board's annual report and accounts, he states:
The privatisation process imposed considerable costs upon the Board, notably in fees for lawyers, accountants and other consultants and professionals. In 1996/97, those costs amounted to £58 million, bringing the total privatisation costs for the Board"—
that is just one part of it—
to £349 million since 1992/93—in addition to the costs imposed by the Government, Railtrack and others.
Net sales proceeds during 1996/97 amounted to £253.4 million, bringing the total net proceeds for sales by the Board to some £820 million since the privatisation process began.
How much has the taxpayer paid for London and Continental Railways so far? Let us be serious for a moment. The brutal and deliberate lopping of the railway system by the previous Government was done for one reason only: to pass directly to many of their friends considerable numbers of assets. If anyone doubts that, he has only to look at the profits made by individuals who became involved, either in individual franchises or, in the case of the rolling stock companies, in particular assets that they could sell for astonishing and frightening profits.
We have only to look at the way in which, when there was any difficulty, those same companies came roaring back to the taxpayer saying, "What we would really like from you is extra money to enable us to perform the tasks that we said we were going to perform when we took over the franchise." In addition, the taxpayer is paying at least 50 per cent. more to get half the services that he received under British Rail.
If the amount of money that has been thrown away on privatisation had been spent on the west coast main line, we should now have modern rails and modern trains, and many of the orders that were placed before the privatisation of British Rail would have been fulfilled. There would have been jobs in that industry and passengers at every level would be enjoying a first-class service.
I am not alone in receiving frantic telephone calls from constituents who are not Labour voters complaining that they, as business men, have been dumped on a Milton Keynes platform at 4.30 pm on a Sunday, with no explanation, no train and no clear view of where to go to get an alternative service. I am not alone in receiving constant complaints about the inability of timetables to relate to the way in which trains run. I am not alone in being told by many of my constituents that what is happening now is a disgrace and certainly not an integrated or properly run railway system.
The late, lamented Robert Adley told us what would happen and it has happened almost exactly as his report said it would when privatisation was first mooted. Worse than that, we must realise that some things have still not been brought into the light of day. It is important to realise that Railtrack is not differentiating between the figure that

it spends on maintenance and capital investment. That company is cash rich with taxpayers' money. It is a company that began to do many of the things required of it only when it was told very firmly that unless it did so, within six months it would be in severe trouble. It is a company that is seriously contemplating taking over the running of other companies. That may be a way in which to divert some of the taxpayers' money back into investment, but let us not imagine that that company is marked either by high quality of management or by a high commitment to the railway industry.
Many hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall merely make one or two points. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State came to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Transport Sub-Committee when it was taking evidence on the strategic rail authority, and was so open and ready to exchange views. That report will be of great help to the House when it is printed and I certainly welcome the opportunity to go into considerable depth over the changes that we believe will be necessary.
There are certain things that we should record. The fragmentation of the system means that many of the franchisees are already beginning to think of excuses for not fulfilling their existing conditions. Many of them are using the argument that if they were allowed to extend their franchises, they would be able to do exactly what they promised to do in the first instance, although there is no evidence of that or any reason to believe that they are capable of producing the level of service that they initially promised.
I seriously counsel my right hon. and hon. Friends against extending the franchises. If companies cannot deliver the level of service that they have promised, given the enormous amount of taxpayers' money that most of them are walking away with, they do not deserve to be allowed to continue without severe penalties. We must consider the relationship between the penalties and the public subsidy. There is no point in penalising a company because it is not performing its tasks properly if it gets more money from the taxpayer at the end of the year than if it had performed properly. That is not only bizarre but unjustified. We must look at how we find out about the consumer's view. Many well-meaning people may be involved, but we must ensure that the consumer is properly represented.
We must examine the abuses of rolling stock companies. It is extraordinary that they were flagrantly left outside the control machinery. Those companies do what they like, make as much profit as they want and direct whatever terms and conditions they please to the people who use them. They are not restricted in any way.
The Government not only understand the need for a properly integrated transport system, but are working towards that. Theirs is the first serious attempt for a long time to find out what is happening. They are considering not how they can hand over assets to somebody in the City, but how to provide a good rail transport system. However, I have a warning on one aspect. As a result of the conditions that were laid on it, the British Rail Property Board is increasingly selling sites that many people will need, especially in relation to freight. That land will be needed if we are to develop new and integrated services, and ensure the movement of freight from road to rail that we require. If British Rail persists in selling railway land because it is constrained by its


existing terms, that will be counter-productive. It will not be in anybody's interests and will undermine what we seek to do.
The people who ran a 100-year-old system and kept it together with love and string are much missed. Their lack can be seen throughout the system, and the replacement of people who knew about railways by engaging young people who know nothing about them is not the way in which to achieve customer satisfaction. The private companies should look at that.
Our strategic rail authority must be given proper powers. It must have the ability to make the private companies sit up and take notice, and that means refusing to give them large amounts of money while trying to penalise them by saying that they ought to pay some money back. That is nonsense and it cannot be allowed to continue. Some famous franchises will soon fall in. Some companies will refuse to invest, and the nearer that they get to the end of the franchise, the less they will perform in the manner that they have promised. It is remarkable that we hear a great deal about what they intend to do in 2005. It would be helpful if I knew what they intend to do next week. When I use the train at the weekends, I would like to travel on one that arrives at a time that roughly corresponds to the timetable, has proper seats and is operated in a way that bears some relationship to what passengers want.
This country needs a good transport system. Above all, it needs a good, new railway system. Oddly, because the Conservatives were so brutal in their transfer of state assets to their friends and in their destruction of so much of the railways, they may have given us the chance to start at square one and build a modern, bright system that is worthy of Britain in the new century. I think that we can do it but, having listened to the hilarious tales from the Opposition, I know that we shall not do it with any assistance from them.

Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I agree with much of her damning analysis of privatisation. The rail network is in a sorry state. For many people, it is a second-class, unreliable service and it has been atomised by a privatisation that made no sense. It has been returned to a sort of Victorian structure, and that was done not for any good reason, but for the reasons that have been set out by the hon. Lady. Privatisation was driven by dogmatism and followed a scorched earth policy in an attempt to get everything finished and out of the way before the general election. That is no way to serve rail users or the general public.
The contribution by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, was incredible. Even he admitted that, at least for the time being, matters had got worse rather than better. There was a touching Panglossian optimism that at some time in the future, everything would be all right. The Conservative view of rail privatisation is mariana. I prefer to make a judgment on what has happened so far rather than rely on vague promises of better things to come from the party that caused the present state of the railways. The hon. Member for Croydon, South reminded me why, after 18 years, it was so important to remove the Conservatives from office on 1 May. Much as I might disagree with the Labour party, at least we are on the same planet.
I endorse the remarks by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich about the sale of British Rail land. I shall give an example from my constituency. A parcel of land next to Newhaven Town station served as a taxi rank. It was held by BR and not by Railtrack or Connex South Central, the operator. Despite my protestations and those of the relevant local councils, the land was sold. As a consequence, there is nowhere for taxis to park at that station and people who depended on taxis no longer use the station, but choose instead to drive long distances.
Another parcel of land in Newhaven is owned by what is left of BR, and English, Welsh and Scottish Railways is interested in using it for rail freight sidings. The company has been on site and has told me that it is vital that that parcel of land is not sold. It would cost the Government nothing to put an immediate moratorium on the sale of all land that is currently held by BR until it has been assessed under the Government's new integrated transport policy to see what land could be used. The previous Government identified parcels of land for sale, but they had no interest in developing the railways. I think that the current Government are interested in that and they should review that land.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend addresses an important issue which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Since the general election, there has been a series of auctions of land in which rail operators expressed an interest for rail use. However, that land was sold to developers for other uses. In the context of the Government working towards an integrated transport strategy and making better use of the railways, it makes no sense to remove future development potential for rail services.

Mr. Baker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that when the Minister replies, she will address that point.
The movement of freight by rail has been a sorry tale over the past 10 years and the service has been greatly damaged by the uncertainty of privatisation. In 1986, 9 per cent. of freight was moved by rail, but by 1995, that figure was down to just 6 per cent. In 1985, British Rail or its customers owned 54,500 wagons, but by 1994, the number had dropped to 27,500—a halving of the number of wagons. Freight has been badly hit.
In view of the situation that it inherited, English, Welsh and Scottish Railways is doing a reasonably good job. However, it is not sufficient for the Government simply to rely on rail freight grants, welcome as they are. I welcome the fact that they have been increased, but there is only so much that the rail freight company can do in terms of flexible, customer-focused services or investment in rolling stock or competitive pricing—which it has to do.
The problem of the infrastructure needs to be addressed. For example, the width of tunnels presents a problem. Some of the rolling stock cannot use Railtrack tunnels. A contract to move a commodity from Newhaven port through this country was lost because of unsuitable Railtrack tunnels north of Lewes. Similar problems must be happening throughout the country and there is a need to look at Railtrack's infrastructure if there is to be a revival of rail freight.
There is the question of signalling and track, and the consistency of track between this country and others with regard to the channel tunnel. What are the Government doing to deal with the infrastructure problems that rail freight companies face? What is the Government's strategic plan for freight? Are they prepared to set a target for the amount of freight that will be carried by rail, in either gross or percentage terms, in, say, the next five years? Unless they are prepared to set an objective, they are unlikely to get anywhere near it.
What is the Government's position on the tendency to move towards bigger and bigger lorries? Will they once and for all halt the move from 32-tonne to 44-tonne lorries, and possibly 48-tonne lorries? Notwithstanding access to freight heads, the bigger the lorries, the bigger the tendency to move freight by road at the expense of rail.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) has said, it is important that the channel tunnel is sorted out as soon as possible. I have considerable sympathy for the Government, who have inherited a complete mess from the previous Administration, but it is important to achieve the right economies of scale and distance, so that the channel tunnel is an attractive through route for rail freight, otherwise the problems involving distance will reoccur.
I have travelled on Eurostar. It is a national embarrassment that people can travel from Paris or Brussels to the channel tunnel at high speed, only to have to clank behind commuter trains all the way to Waterloo. I feel ashamed to have to experience that with people who have come from France. What on earth do they think? However, the Government are right not to be held to ransom by private piranhas. I hope that the Government will continue to adopt that policy, but I shall also look for a constructive way forward to ensure that the channel tunnel works in future.
Language is not everything, but it is important. Over the years, I for one have become fed up of hearing money that is put into roads called investment and money that is put into rail called subsidy. We must change that use of language.
I look for an assurance from the Government tonight that, when they conduct their review of trunk roads, they will look at all the alternative means of delivering transport along particular corridors, rather than simply, as the previous Government did, look at the potential for a particular road. I give one example. I declare an interest because I live next to a level crossing on a trunk road—next to the rail line and the A27 between Lewes and Polegate.
The previous scheme, which was identified by the previous Government, was for an horrific flyover through an area of outstanding natural beauty, next to a site of special scientific interest, next to a national nature reserve, and through the most beautiful countryside in Sussex. They wanted to add another four lanes to the existing two lanes between Lewes and Polegate at a cost of some £90 million. However, at no point was any assessment made of the potential of the existing parallel dual carriageway—that is to say, the railway line from Lewes to Polegate, on which the trains trundle along three-quarters empty, and which could meet significant transport needs.
Whenever anybody tried to raise the matter—Members of Parliament, councils or whoever—the Department of Transport told them that the railway line was not relevant and had to be considered separately. Roads and railways must be examined together. I argue, unusually for a Member of Parliament, not for lots of money to be spent on a big trunk road in my constituency; I want it spent on the parallel railway, to achieve a transfer of traffic, particularly passenger traffic, from road to rail. The stations along that line are based in town centres and near employment centres. That means that it is possible to achieve a transfer in this case.
Are the Government committed to capital investment in new rail lines, and not simply to moving the goal posts financially for train operating companies, rolling stock companies or whatever? In the same way as Governments have often been prepared to invest real money in roads, are this Government prepared to invest that money in railways as well?
I think in particular of a case with which the Minister is familiar—the Lewes-Uckfield line. I am sorry to be so parochial, but these examples reflect the position nationwide. One piece of rail land—the track bed is still there—six miles long was removed by the county council in 1969 to build a road bridge. That has left Uckfield straggling down from London, with a short gap to the junction at Lewes. The county council has put together a case for the re-establishment of that line, which could be done at relatively little cost compared with the cost of building new roads.
If the Government are serious about getting people back on to rail, they need to identify, first, all the lines that are at present run for freight purposes only—there are many of those—and to find out whether they could be used for passenger traffic as well. Secondly, they need to find out where track beds are in place and rail lines can be re-established. I would welcome a Government commitment to examine those two things.
The Government need to examine rolling stock. I will not repeat points about rolling stock companies, which have been well made. Suffice it to say that, like the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon, South, I travel on Connex South Central and the trains that I travel on are similar to the ones that appeared in the Beatles film "A Hard Day's Night"—I think that they are probably the same ones—from the early 1960s. The ones on the Uckfield-Oxted line further north probably come from "Brief Encounter" because they are almost pre-BR. That is a national disgrace, as well as unsafe.
Connex South Central is in many ways trying hard, but it has a policy of eliminating bicycles from trains. It is making integrated transport well-nigh impossible. People cannot take the bike to the station, get on a train and use the bike at the other end, which is an important transport pattern for many people. I hope that the Minister will consider some means of ensuring that bicycles can be kept on trains and that train operating companies are not allowed to bar them, as I fear will happen.
The public need safe stations, particularly at night and for women. They need frequent, reliable services, new, attractive rolling stock, and available timetable information that they can access with the knowledge and confidence that it is correct. They need cheap fares. One of the key ways in which to get people back on to rail is to


have cheaper fares. At present, the most expensive public transport journey in the world is one stop on the London underground. It is more expensive per mile than Concorde. That is nonsense and needs to be dealt with. We need investment in track and signalling, and the reopening and reuse for passengers of lines, where applicable.
Socially, economically and especially environmentally, the future is rail. I hope that the new Government, who I think understand the issues and mean well, will have the courage to follow that through and ensure that their application is as good as their words have been.

Mr. Clive Efford: The description by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) of the operation of the rail services since privatisation would not be recognised by anyone who uses the rail services to travel to and from London. The undue haste with which they were privatised and sold off very cheaply has resulted in passenger service requirements that are too low and in rail operators receiving bonuses for operating at levels that are lower than those that were provided by British Rail.
There is also an enormous cost to the taxpayer. The arrangements for sell-off cost the taxpayer about £550 million. On top of that, with debt write-offs, it cost the taxpayer £2.3 billion just to privatise British Rail. Its book value at the time of privatisation was set at £4.3 billion, and it was sold for £1.9 billion. That led to a cash bonanza for one or two people who took over some of the franchises.
For example, the Porterbrook rolling stock leasing company was sold for £527 million; seven months later, it was sold for £825 million, a profit of about £300 million. Similarly, Eversholt was sold for £580 million and sold on for £726 million, a profit of about £140 million, only one year later.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South described the rail services in his constituency as having improved. A September article in The Independent said that 300 trains had been cut from one flagship route, which I assume serves the area that the hon. Gentleman represents. He described Connex South Central, which runs the line, as a model of privatisation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman's constituents would make the same defence of privatisation that he made.
My constituents are forced to suffer the services provided by Connex, which in December was the worst performing rail operator and, as a result, suffered the highest penalty. Two or three trains a day are either cancelled or are more than five minutes late, with only 70 per cent. arriving less than five minutes late.
Overcrowding is an enormous problem across London—certainly on Connex trains. When I investigated the matter before I was elected, I was surprised to discover that pixies really do exist—people in excess of capacity. People travelling to work in the rush hour would take little comfort from being described as pixies as they squash themselves on to trains that have been reduced in length since privatisation.
My constituents have horror stories about their travel to work. One said that he arrived at New Cross station only to be told that his train was no longer heading in the

direction he thought it was, and that he would have to change trains. He then discovered that a similar fate had befallen a number of other people. It was virtually impossible to step out of the train on to the central platform, which had rail tracks on either side, because it was packed with people waiting for trains.
Someone working in my office travels out from New Cross to Eltham in the rush hour. She was surprised to find that her train was packed as she was travelling towards Kent when most people were travelling towards central London. She then discovered that trains to Cannon Street were no longer stopping at New Cross, so if people wanted to get a train to Cannon Street, they had to go back to Lewisham, get off and then get on another train to their destination.
Nine out of 10 companies run overcrowded trains, especially during the rush hour. For London services, the average length of a train is now eight coaches, whereas it was 10 under British Rail. Overcrowding is usually based on a two-day study of a rail service. However, because it is such a short sample period, that does not take into account any overcrowding due to delays or cancellations.
Connex fares have risen by 2.9 per cent., and would have been greater had they not been held down because of the operator's appalling performance. Had it performed better, it would have been allowed to charge even higher fares.
People are now forced to pay extra for railcards, on the basis that they are travelling across several different operator services. They do not—most travel only on the rail service from their point of embarkation to central London, and then continue their journey on London Transport rather than by rail. Only a limited number of people should be forced to pay the additional costs that have been imposed on the assumption that passengers travel across a range of operator services.
The number of complaints has also risen. During the first six months, there were more complaints about rail services than there were for the whole of the previous year under British Rail.
Drivers of both network trains and freight trains tell horror stories about their daily experiences. One driver who works for English, Welsh and Scottish Freight complained to me because the flexible rostering that applied until July last year has been changed and he is being forced regularly to work a 12-hour shift—on a train that weighs several thousand tonnes. He claims that driver fatigue is now a serious problem.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take that issue on board in any future monitoring of operator services. People should listen to the day-to-day concerns of the drivers, who say that we are playing a game of Russian roulette on London's rail network—not just with freight trains, but with passenger trains.
I understand that one operator has an attendance management scheme that means that, if a driver is off work for even a single day due to sickness, his pay is immediately stopped. That results in drivers deciding that, if they are going to have that amount of pay stopped, they might as well take an equivalent number of days off sick. I will not name the rail operator concerned, as I do not want to cause problems for the drivers, but the knock-on effect of that practice is a disrupted and unreliable service.
Freight drivers are given personal facilities breaks, but often in places where there are no facilities—no toilets and nowhere to eat. They have to make their own arrangements.
Privatisation of the rail service has led to all those problems, which go against health and safety needs and the interests of the public. Those problems need to be tackled. We should be aware of the concerns felt by those employed in the rail services, so that we can tackle some of the dangers.
Rail privatisation has led to a worse service, and, I believe, increased danger for both the public and the people who work on the railways. Hit squads have been sent into local authorities to tackle education problems. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to think about sending hit squads into rail operators if they cannot fulfil their contracts. We should put in managers who will deliver the sort of services that the people of London who travel or work on the service want and deserve.

Mr. Tim Collins: We heard a very interesting speech by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor)—sadly, he is no longer in the Chamber—who said that everything wrong with the rail service had resulted from 18 years of under-in vestment by the Conservative party. Those who travelled on British Rail before May 1979 will be astonished to hear that services were so excellent—or that they constantly ran on time, trains were clean and there was never industrial action.
The hon. Member went on to say that another failing of 18 years of Conservative government was that we had not built the channel tunnel high-speed rail link. It is worth noting that, although a channel tunnel had been talked about since the time of Napoleon, the tunnel was built only under the previous Conservative Government. Therefore, before we start complaining about a link to the tunnel, we should note that a Conservative Government built the tunnel.
The hon. Member was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) on how he would pay for his grand ambitions. It turned out that his strategy for paying for those grand Liberal Democrat ambitions was to enable local authorities to use the ticket fees and fines generated by car use. Therefore, doubling passenger numbers and rebuilding thousands of miles of track will be accomplished by using fees from car parking tickets. That is a little unusual.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) also favoured us with a very entertaining speech. Sadly, she, too, is no longer in the Chamber. I hope that she will forgive me if I use a technical term for her speech: it was utter tosh. She said that, if British Rail had carried on exactly as it had been, we would be living in nirvana—with a first-class service and trains that were clean, speedy and efficient and with no prospects of any problems. She seems to have forgotten what British Rail was like.
In its heyday, in the 1960s and 1970s, British Rail was a service that brought people together on dirty, draughty and litter-strewn platforms, making them listen to people

on speakers who sounded as though they were gargling in battery acid. Passengers would be shepherded by surly, unco-operative and uninformative staff into a collection of cattle trucks, and would not be delivered to their destination in anything remotely approaching their timetable. At the end of their experience, they would be told that the problem lay with—in accelerating order—nature, God and the secretary general of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen.
Let us not forget that one of the great things we have lost because of the break-up of the old British Rail is the possibility of further national rail strikes—which were recurrent if not annual events during the days of British Rail. When British Rail existed, the rail system was not run for the passenger or even for Ministers: it was run for Mr. Sidney Weighell of the National Union of Railwaymen, who was subsequently the ASLEF secretary general. We have made progress in moving beyond that situation.
I would not argue—any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) would—that the current system is perfect. I myself have had some complaints about local services, and believe that there is considerable scope for improvement. None the less, I believe that some positive developments are already occurring, and I agree with my hon. Friend's comments on the InterCity west coast main line.
Like the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, I represent a constituency that is some distance from the House—rather more than 250 miles away—and, like him, when I can, I prefer to travel by train. I am an unabashed fan of rail and think that, at its best, rail can be cleaner, faster, cheaper and more effective and relaxing than almost any other available mode of transport. I will therefore continue to argue very strongly for better progress on the InterCity west coast main line. However, I believe that, in Richard Branson and Brian Barrett—the twin heads of Virgin Rail—we have people who are far more likely to deliver more progress on the line over a period of years than British Rail management would ever have achieved.
Only today, I received in my post an invitation from Railtrack to attend the unveiling of a spectacular new project to rebuild and refurbish the grade 2 listed Victorian station at Grange-over-Sands in my constituency. That project was possible only because of a combination of private sector money from Railtrack, national lottery funding and co-operation by both Grange town council and South Lakeland district council. Such imaginative public-private partnerships—to use a phrase that often rings from the lips of Ministers—have been possible because of privatisation, and would not have happened without it.
We have to notice that privatisation is always controversial, and always resisted. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South quite rightly pointed out how, in the early stages, every privatisation has been criticised and attacked—invariably by Labour Members and almost invariably by Liberal Democrat Members. However, after the passage of five or 10 years, we discover not only that they do not attempt to reverse privatisation, but that they do not repeat their original opposition to it; such is the success that almost always accompanies privatisations.
I believe that, in time, rail privatisation will take its place with the privatisations of British Telecom and British Airways.

Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the people of Inverness are happy with the state of the British Airways privatisation?

Mr. Collins: Undoubtedly the hon. Gentleman knows more about the people of Inverness than do I. However, before British Airways was privatised, it was the nation's most embarrassing airline. Now—to coin a phrase—it is the world's favourite airline. If he is saying that it is now the Liberal Democrats' policy to renationalise British Airways, their magic penny on income tax—which has already managed to pay for education, transport, health and all the rest of it—is being stretched even further. Now the magic penny will apparently stretch to renationalise British Airways. I think not. As I was saying, rail privatisation will take its place alongside the privatisation of British Airways and British Telecom not only as a proven success and something that leads to a better service for British businesses and citizens alike, but as something that is envied and increasingly copied around the world.
I conclude by making four points to the Minister, who has listened patiently throughout the debate. The first is a genuine "thank you" to her for helping a constituent of mine who had difficulty obtaining a railcard after some benefit changes. I am grateful to her for her assistance in dealing with that problem.
The second thought that I should like to leave with the Minister is that I hope she will not take from this debate—I am sure she will not—the view that the enthusiasm for rail, which has been expressed by all parties, is an excuse for a war against the motorist. Many people have no realistic alternative to road transport to meet their daily needs. In that connection, 1 received a letter this very morning from a constituent, Mr. D. Harrison of Sedgwick, who wrote:
The problem is 'What Public Transport?'. I live in the village of Sedgwick which is four miles south of Kendal. There is one bus on Wednesday morning but how do we carry a weeks shopping on a mini-bus? I am registered disabled and have to run a car, otherwise I would be a virtual prisoner at home. I cannot walk any great distance without becoming very tired so you can see why a car is essential.
This is not someone who is making a party political point. Of course he would like to use public transport if it was a viable alternative, but it is not and will not be. The same is true for many of my constituents and others. We would all like bus services to be improved and investment in rail increased, but for many people the car will remain essential.
I ask the Minister to pass on to her colleague in another place, the Minister for Roads, my enthusiastic support and that of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) for the A590 bypass improvement. Again, there is no possible rail alternative for the link between Barrow and the rest of the United Kingdom—it is going to be that road and no other. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that rail must play its part in the overall transport package; in many circumstances, it cannot be a substitute for road transport.
Thirdly, the InterCity west coast main line has many uses to Members of all parties who represent that side of the country. Naturally, I take a particular interest in the

station of Oxenholme on that line. It is the gateway to the Lake district and serves the town of Kendal, the main population centre in my constituency.
When the Minister is reviewing future provision on that line with Virgin and Railtrack—something that has excited many of my constituents—I ask her to bear in mind the need to make sure that trains continue to stop at Oxenholme, and that progress on accelerating journey times between London and Glasgow is not obtained by cutting some of the stops en route. That form of progress would not commend itself to my constituents or to the many tourists from this country and beyond who wish to stop at the Lake district.

Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a role for the Government in the management and running of the railways, given his appeal to the Minister to intervene?

Mr. Collins: I have never doubted that for a moment. The hon. Gentleman has been a party to the extraordinary attacks on private and free enterprise—"private piranhas" was the memorable phrase used. We have heard much about the terrible lack of investment in the railways—I think that the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned a century—but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider how the railway system was built 100 years ago, which was when his party was last in power. His party often invokes the memory of William Ewart Gladstone, but he would be spinning in his grave at the thought that the private sector, which built the railway network in his day, should now, according to the vision of his own party, be completely supplanted in favour of the state sector.
There is a value and a virtue in, and a role for, both the public and private sectors in rail and all other forms of transport. The Conservatives came to that recognition a long time ago. Sadly, the Liberal Democrats appear trapped, not in the 19th century, when the Liberal party had more common sense than it has now, but in a sort of 1942 or 1943 time warp. There was a time when most things had to be run by the public sector, but we are not at war now—time has moved on.
Fourthly, I have been in correspondence with the Minister on several occasions on behalf of my constituent Mr. David Kelly of Oxenholme, who has been mounting a sensible campaign on rail transport and the dangers of over-carrying. People are unable to get off trains on time at certain stops because they are not given sufficient warning time.
Mr. Kelly's sister, an elderly lady, was over-carried from Oxenholme to Carlisle, and died some time later of a heart attack that he believes was brought on by that terrible event. The Minister has been very helpful to me in correspondence, and has answered some parliamentary questions on the matter. However, I ask her again to bear in mind the case for providing proper equipment, so that staff on the station platform can communicate with train drivers and thereby minimise the chance of over-carrying.
It has become clear during the debate that no party can claim a monopoly of care or concern about rail. Everyone is concerned about rail. However, it is also clear that a safe future for rail will not result from the embarrassed and quiet socialism of the Government or the overt socialism of the day trippers on the Liberal Democrat


Benches; it will come only from the Conservative party, which has a clear strategy for rail and—in the policies that we introduced before the election and are being carried forward now—has set out a realistic strategy for producing a better British rail system for the future.

Mr. Barry Jones: I am glad to follow the fluid speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). However, he should know that the great W. E. Gladstone, who lived in my constituency, produced a scheme to nationalise the railways in Britain. I thank the Liberal Democrats for shrewdly choosing the subject of the debate. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), which was engaging but rather too sanguine. I very much support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friends.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made a very convincing speech. The previous Government's privatisation of the railways made a large profit for a few but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer and the passenger and has fragmented the rail network.
One of Britain's biggest problems is traffic pollution, and my constituency suffers massive traffic jams day in, day out. I cannot accurately estimate the impact on the health of my constituents, but I know that it is serious. The more that the Government can implement policies that will put more car drivers on to our railways, the better. That is one reason why I shall support the Government tonight.
The railway line in my area runs from Wrexham through my constituency to Birkenhead on the Wirral. There are many stations and most of them are located in my constituency. They include Shotton, Hawarden, Buckley, Penyffordd, Hope, Caergwrle and Cefn-y-Bedd. They are in dire and urgent need of modernisation, development and investment. They are cold, dark, windswept and desolate. They have no closed circuit television, no security whatsoever and the parking is often dire. There is no staff member to turn to and no modern means of communication with another centre that can give advice and assistance to any luckless passenger. I want those stations to be served by a rail service that is more punctual, has more frequent trains and rolling stock that is modern and up to date. I should like the advertised services to be reliable.
North West Trains has small plans for some meagre investment. I thank it for that and welcome the proposed investment, but it will not come early enough to satisfy my constituents. I want the Welsh Office, Railtrack, the Welsh Development Agency and North West Trains to get together urgently and come forward with a convincing, up-to-date development strategy for my constituents' rail line. Nothing less will do. I urge the authorities to bear that in mind.
Buckley is a key station, serving one of the biggest towns in north-east Wales, but it is found at the end of a long, dark, lonely lane. It has no efficient lighting, no waiting room and no members of staff. Most of the time, it is a ghost station. It is uninviting and forbidding and is a daunting prospect for any of my constituents early in the morning or in the evenings when it is dark and very lonely.
Alongside the station is a factory owned by Optec. It is soon to close and the 70 or 80 workers will lose their jobs in a month or so after nearly 10 years' loyal service. We should have a better chance of finding a new tenant for the soon-to-be-vacated factory if the station across the road from it were modern and had up-to-date facilities. The county council and the Welsh Development Agency would then be able to attract investment to the factory. I am sure that that would result in more customers for Buckley station. I want the development agency and the county council to find a new tenant and work on plans to upgrade the ancient and uninviting station.
As I have said, the line links Wrexham and Birkenhead. It is used by commuters, shoppers, students and workers. It goes through many communities in my constituency and can enhance my constituents' prosperity if North West Trains puts in adequate and urgent investment. It runs beside the famous Deeside industrial park, which I believe is the finest in western Europe. I have suggested to the Welsh Development Agency, Flintshire county council, North West Trains and Railtrack that a station should be built on the industrial park, which employs more than 4,000 people. It would not cost the earth and would make the industrial park even more inviting for inward investment.
Wales badly needs the railways that it has. In addition to the Wrexham to Birkenhead line, the Shrewsbury to Newport line, the central Wales line and the Cambrian coast line are vital to the future of Wales, its society, its communities and its economy. I ask my right hon. Friend and his Ministers to bear that in mind in their plans.

Mr. Robert Key: For two reasons, I am glad that I changed my mind and decided to listen to, and partake in, the debate. First, it has convinced me that the Liberal Democrats have lost their touch on community politics. I shall come back to that later. Secondly, we have heard some good speeches. The Minister gave a clear exposition of the Government's position and difficulties. Then we heard a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It is always a pleasure to hear her in full sail on those issues. As usual, I disagreed with much of what she said, but she spoke with great knowledge and commitment, which is worth hearing in the House.
In these debates, we are always likely to hear complaints and whinges and the trivialisation of very serious issues. I have for some years believed that transport as a political issue has been far too low down the political agenda over the past 50 years. I therefore look forward to the Minister's winding-up speech. I look forward even more to her Department's White Paper on integrated transport. I hope that it will get the nation thinking about priorities and not just—justifiable—whingeing about many of the problems that we all have to face daily. This debate has been rather sad. Both the motion and the amendment are pretty silly.
I was a sceptical convert to privatisation. I believed that the rail system had gone too far for the private sector to be able to reclaim it, but the more that I understood the issues in my time as a Transport Minister, the more I realised that privatisation was the only realistic option if we were to achieve the sort of revolution in transport that I am convinced is necessary. I thought, too, that the cruel Beeching cuts had done far too much damage to our network to make it possible to reclaim the railway system.
People sometimes think that there was a golden age of the railways; I do not think that there ever was. Perhaps there was the golden age of steam, but that is about as far as it goes. There was certainly a romantic age of the railway. Indeed, we have heard several stories about little two-coach trains puffing across the countryside on picturesque branch lines. I suppose that the Rev. W. V. Awdry has a lot to answer for. There was romance in the great express trains of my youth and that of many hon. Members, with the Flying Scotsman, with sleepers to Mallaig and Fort William and observation cars, or the Cornish riviera express, which was a regular mode of transport for me for some years. There was less romance on the old Southern Railways line from Waterloo to Salisbury and Exeter, which rattled along on pretty inadequate track.
My hopes of romantic sleepers from regional railways to places such as Bordeaux via the channel tunnel with the introduction of the Eurotunnel services were dashed when it all went horribly wrong. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is laughing, but he better listen carefully to why it went wrong. Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money was wasted on ridiculous coaches in the last gasps of the nationalised industry's procurement process. I went to Birmingham to see the coaches under construction. I was told by the people who were building them that they would not work. They were so badly procured that they would either have had to run the trains at full speed and switch off the compartment lights or have had the lights on and slowed down. There was not enough power; it was that bad.
We should be concerned with the reality. I am not going to get into arguments for and against nationalisation. We have rehearsed them many times. I shall specifically leave out the great deal that I should like to say on that issue and concentrate on one aspect that has not been mentioned in the debate: the good news in our local railways. I shall not miss out some of the bad news, but I shall above all point out that the people who are running the railways—the staff, whether they drive or clean the trains, as well as the management—have an investment in the future in their own employment, and deserve our thanks and not just brickbats all the time.
The problems are not all the fault of the private railway companies. One of my constituents wrote to me before Christmas because his granddaughter had had to stand all the way from London to Edinburgh. The chief executive of Great North Eastern wrote to my constituent pointing out that, since the company took over the franchise at the end of April 1996, the number of passengers had increased by just under 14 per cent. That was placing a great deal of pressure on the company's rolling stock; 90 per cent. of all trains were in service every day compared with just over 80 per cent. two years before. Mr. Garnett told me that he was desperately keen to order additional trains, to which end he approached the Government in October 1997 with a proposal that would require an extension to the franchise—but there had been no answer from the Government. Meanwhile, the problem of congestion gets steadily worse.
Members of Parliament also receive complaints about Railtrack. I reckon that about a third of the delays and failures on my local line are down to Railtrack. One of the problems of the Regional Railways line between Bristol and Portsmouth is the fact that the company inherited poor track and a backlog of under-investment.

I have been mystified by Railtrack's attitude to safety, which must be paramount. I refer specifically to a bridge known as Broken Cross railway bridge, at Ford in my constituency. Laverstock and Ford parish council wrote to me on 29 December to say that the structure of the bridge comprises
bits of wood, rope and hazard tape".
It is clearly very dangerous. Michael Wheway, clerk to the council, says that there is little to prevent the
unwary motorist driving through the flimsy structure and finishing up on the railway line. Repeated requests to Railtrack have not even produced a response.
I wrote to Railtrack on 5 January but have not had an answer either. It is high time Railtrack attended to the problem. The remarks of the parish council clerk are no exaggeration.
I said earlier that the Liberal Democrats have lost their touch. Let me explain: I am all for fair criticism when things go wrong—with South West Trains, with Railtrack or anywhere else—but the little campaign that the Liberal Democrats have been waging with respect to South West Trains has been unfair, badly researched and unhelpful. Of course there have been problems on the line. The campaign circulated a long list of them—selectively—to the local media and Members of Parliament. Of the 57 complaints recorded, 16 could be directly attributed to South West Trains, and 19 to Railtrack; 19 did not include enough information to know who was to blame, and three were extremely doubtful complaints. Claiming that that constituted a massive attack on South West Trains just did not wash: it was not fair and it did not work.
We cannot afford complacency—I am certainly not complacent. For many years, I have gone with all-party delegations, including the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and many others, to discuss improvements to the line; by and large we have got what we asked for. We have had new trains, new loops, new signalling, new investment in stations. That adds up to a considerable improvement. By all means let us attack failure, but we should not blame all the problems on the company. There are suicides on the line, people are taken ill just before they are due to drive trains—for goodness' sake, let us be sensible.
This morning, I went to Salisbury station to talk to commuters and staff. First, the Waterloo to Exeter train arrived early. The conductor, who has worked on the railway for 30 years, said:
Things are 100 per cent. better than they were in the old days.
A cleaner on the trains said that more people were being employed to clean more trains at the new Salisbury depot. He did point out, incidentally, that it is customers who make the mess. I talked to a guard who had worked on the railways for 26 years. He said that they were doing pretty well now, although there had been a bad patch before Christmas. He was worried about breakdowns in the air conditioning. What irony! A few years ago, he would have been worrying about what happened when he tapped the wheel; now he worries about whether the air conditioning can cope in the summer.
The travel centre staff at the railway station were busy when I went in. They said that their commonest complaint was about connections between trains and they are right, as that is a problem. Railway staff are almost unfailingly good-humoured now and the cheerfulness of the conductors has meant a revolution in customer relations. Let us give them credit where it is due.
Similarly, South West Trains has said that it will provide cycle facilities at Salisbury station and recognises the problems. Also on that line, Stagecoach has promised and delivered an integrated bus service and one can buy a ticket on the bus to go straight through to Waterloo station.
I met the management of South West Trains only last week. It is happy to consider the opening of new railway stations, particularly the possibility of one at Porton to serve the Porton Down Government establishment, which is good news.
Let us recognise the problems where they exist. However, for most people, most of the time and on most of their journeys, there is no choice of mode between car, bus, train or plane. Where there is a choice, I warmly welcome attempts to encourage the use of public transport, if and where it can cope. I must reserve judgment on the forthcoming White Paper on integrated transport. I just hope that we have more judgment and less squabbling.

Mr. Tom Brake: Tonight we have heard much dissatisfaction and occasional satisfaction expressed about standards of train services, disappointment at the level of investment in our railways and opposition to the previous Government's privatisation policy. I shall briefly comment on some of the contributions to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) outlined our position with clarity and forcefulness. In turn, the Minister outlined the Government's position and made an announcement that is particularly welcome to me, which is that the franchising director is to force Connex South Central to tackle overcrowding—I am a regular sufferer of Connex South Central's service.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), the Opposition spokesman, concentrated a significant proportion of his speech on the privatisation of other industries. I wonder why. By recognising that if there are to be improvements, they will happen only in five or six years, he appeared to be making a grudging apology for the disaster of rail privatisation to date. His contribution was entertaining in some ways. At one point, he mentioned the 45 per cent. increase in fares between 1980 and 1995—a very damning increase in comparison to the increases introduced by the privatised rail companies, but of course, the Conservative Government were in power at that time.

Mr. Ottaway: That is the whole point. We privatised the railways because of the increases under the nationalised service.

Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for illuminating me on that point. He also spoke frequently of his fixation with the coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, but I will not comment further on that.
The speech by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is unfortunately not in her seat, underlined her knowledge and commitment.

I congratulate her on her ability to speak so fluently without reference to notes. I wish that I could do the same. She made an interesting point about the sale of land and the British Rail Property Board, which is now known as Railtrack Property. One concrete example of which hon. Members may be aware, is that of Battersea dogs' home. Although I am wholly supportive of the Battersea dogs' home, it has purchased land that could have been used for a rail exchange facility for a concrete plant. Battersea dogs do not require linking to the rail network, whereas the aggregates plant could usefully have been linked in and I am afraid that that is not going to happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) raised concerns about how we can achieve the shift of freight from road to rail. I will listen with interest to the Minister's response. He also called for Concorde to replace London Underground, as travel per mile is cheaper on Concorde than it is on the underground. I look forward to that improvement in service.
As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) said, driver fatigue is a major problem. The fact that the number of drivers has been reduced from 17,000 to 11,000 over the past six years may have some bearing on that.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) expressed support for the railways, but then talked about a war against motorists. Liberal Democrats are certainly not conducting a war against motorists, so I do not know to whom he is referring.
The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) highlighted security problems in stations in his constituency. Such problems may have been exacerbated by the fact that the number of station staff has more than halved over the past six years.
The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned bridges—I shall return to that point later—and suggested that Liberal Democrats in his constituency had lost touch with our campaign on rail services. Unfortunately, he was the only Member of Parliament in the area not to support the campaign.

Mr. Key: That is misleading. I told the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that his evidence was so poor and badly researched that we should check it with South West Trains before we agreed how to proceed. He wanted to proceed before he knew the facts.

Mr. Brake: If that were so, it applied equally to all the other Members of Parliament who supported what my right hon. Friend was saying.
I was amused that the only maintenance problem that the hon. Member for Salisbury could identify concerned air-conditioning units. I have experienced many more significant maintenance problems on railways than that.
Whatever hon. Members think about the privatisation of British Rail, the fact is that the expense of its implementation and the continuing costs to the taxpayer have, according to the Union Bank of Switzerland, left Britain with the highest rail fares in the world. It is essential for sustainability that the railways play a greater role in moving freight and people, but that will happen only if day-to-day operational standards improve rapidly and large-scale investment is sustained for many years.
We welcome the National Audit Office's insistence that the rail franchising director tighten up procedures for verifying the train performance information that is supplied


by the train operating companies and Railtrack. We would go further; we believe that existing performance standards should be raised. Some of the train operating companies are meeting the standards, but the official complaints figures—which other hon. Members have cited and which were highlighted in the excellent report by Save Our Railways, "The Impact of Privatisation"—have increased by 96 per cent. since last year.
We believe—as does the industry—that that is because the previous Government set abysmally low standards to ensure that privatisation was seen as a success. Their definition of success was not that there should be greater customer satisfaction after privatisation but that there should be sufficient private companies bidding to run services. Under the current standards regime—which, we are told, is very demanding—suburban trains that arrive up to five minutes late are considered to have arrived on time; similarly, inter-city trains can arrive up to 10 minutes late and still be on time.
We believe not only that existing standards should be strengthened, but that other standards should be introduced and that a wider range of indicators should be used. The train operating companies should not be allowed to slacken timetables to inflate the apparent rate of train punctuality. Surveys of customer satisfaction, undertaken by the franchisees as a condition of their contracts, should be the subject of independent scrutiny. Standards of cleanliness, which are not currently measured, should be measured.
With tougher standards should go tougher penalties. Other hon. Members have referred to the penalty that South West Trains experienced, but a £100,000 fine is a pinprick in comparison to the £63 million that the company receives in subsidy. I am sure that Connex has already shrugged off the derisory fine imposed on it.
Train operating companies can do much to improve their services, but under-investment is a serious problem. Everyone accepts that large sums of money are needed to modernise the network. For 20 years, the west coast main line has awaited improvements. All over the country, the rail service has bottlenecks, and antiquated track layouts and signalling.
As well as financing improvements in those areas, money must be found for other projects, such as the London underground, which creaks and groans under a £1.2 billion backlog of outstanding repairs. Only today, we heard that it has suffered a further setback with the Jubilee line extension being delayed by another six months, making it more than a year late.
The official Opposition have no solution other than the privatisation of London Underground. One would have thought that with the collapse of London and Continental's channel tunnel link, the creation of yet more fat cats after the sale of the docklands light railway and the high levels of customer dissatisfaction with the train operating companies, the Conservatives would have made their praise of privatisation less conspicuous. The new Government still maintain a deathly silence on the issue of London Underground and the tube's future.
Hon. Members have mentioned the fast link to the channel tunnel. The sums involved are beyond the financing capacity of the Government, who today ruled out—until 2003, at the earliest—the possibility of using daily congestion charges, thereby discarding a possible source of revenue that could be used to finance transport

improvements. Therefore, private sources must be tapped, and we recognise that. In such circumstances, it is the Government's duty to create conditions in which the private sector will invest. The limited public funds that are available should be used to lever in private funds on the best possible terms.
The good intentions expressed in the objectives and the concordat that the Minister of Transport mentioned will not help to secure private funding. For instance, the document mentions providing
guidance and assistance … to local authorities … about securing finance for railways".
That will be useful, but with local authorities facing a shortfall in their budgets of up to £1 billion they are hardly in a position to fund substantial improvements in the railways. We will therefore be dependent on the private sector.
In a few weeks, Railtrack will publish its third network management statement. We sincerely hope that it will accept the role in which it has been cast and act as the steward of the network. We will expect an imaginative plan from the company to enhance the capability of the network and we look to it to use the strength of its balance sheet to finance improvements.
We remind Railtrack that its primary duty is to the existing railway network, which includes 55,000 bridges. Many of those bridges are reaching the end of their design life and will cost no less than £11 billion to maintain and renew. Railtrack has allowed just over £1 billion for such work, but it must fulfil its principal duties before directing its efforts to other projects.
In return, the Rail Regulator must consider access charges and must ensure that the network is prioritised, instead of profit for shareholders. It may be necessary to extend franchises, if that is the only way to obtain investment. If the Government will not provide investment, it must come from somewhere and franchise extensions may be a possible source. Many hon. Members mentioned the rolling stock companies. Their fat cats have already lapped up the cream and the saucer is now empty.
It is too late to do anything about the vast sums that were extracted by the people who originally bought the ROSCOs. Now, we must work with the companies to find out how we can secure the investment necessary to deal with the 1,300 mark I carriages that still operate and that, according to the Clapham disaster inquiry, should be phased out by the end of the century.
We look forward to the challenging performance standards, the creation of conditions for greater private sector investment and a quick resolution of the position of the ROSCOs. We look forward to what we hope will be a far-sighted and comprehensive network management statement from Railtrack that will show that the company has the foresight and strength to think strategically and beyond its shareholders.
I believe that none of the measures that I have outlined requires legislation. We hope that they will all be well in hand by the time that the White Paper is published. By then, the Government will have been in office for nearly a year. Any subsequent legislation will no doubt take a further year, and setting up a strategic rail authority may take even longer. We cannot wait that long for an upsurge of investment in our railways. We call on the Minister—the fat controller of the railways, if he will pardon the


expression—to be bold and take on board our proposals. He should not call for another review, consultation or reorganisation but accept our proposals so that we can get the train out of the station, in comfort and on time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): This has been an interesting debate, inasmuch as, with, I think, three exceptions, every contribution has been critical of the previous Administration's policy of rail privatisation, and very critical of the services that are being provided on our railways; underlined the failure in respect of the investment level that the previous Administration promised would flow from their policies; and highlighted the importance of a properly integrated, fully functioning railway system for our people. We share those views. We regard our railways as central in carrying both more passengers and more freight and in playing an ever increasing role in an integrated transport strategy, to ensure that we can begin to offer real choices to the travelling public and move away from over-dependence on the private car.
As I said, with three exceptions, every hon. Member has criticised, with no small expertise, the previous Government's rail privatisation policy and highlighted the desperate situation that flowed from it. The identity of those who did not accept what we regard as a proven fact was hardly remarkable; it came as no surprise. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) decimated in her inimitable way the contribution of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). He said that his was the only party that was looking to the future. His ability to rewrite history and his inability to acknowledge the damage caused to our country by the political dogma of rail privatisation suggest that the future for his party is bleak.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South seemed unaware of the fact that what he called—I am probably paraphrasing—the socialist dogma of taking back Eurostar into public ownership is a requirement of an agreement drawn up by and driven through by his party. If London and Continental Railways invokes section 77 of that agreement, as it did in saying that it could not complete its contract, and after 30 days, that is still the situation, the Government of the day are required to take back the Eurostar service and ensure that it runs and continues to carry passengers and play its part.
The hon. Gentleman totally ignored the actual costs of privatisation, but my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich had all those figures at the tip of her tongue. She made abundantly clear the scale of the waste that had produced services of which every hon. Member, with the exception of the hon. Members for Croydon, South and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), was critical. It is hardly surprising that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale should praise the previous Administration's policy on rail privatisation, because I understand that before he entered the House he was press secretary to a previous Conservative Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney).
I should like to refer to the themes that hon. Members have referred to tonight. The debate began with a contribution from the hon. Member for Truro and

St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who asked about the specific functions of the Government's proposed new rail authority. No firm decisions have as yet been made, but it was stated in our manifesto that that authority would combine the functions of the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and some of those that are currently the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We do not necessarily regard those functions as the exclusive limitations of the authority's remit. The likely areas of responsibility for the new authority will probably also include managing existing franchise contracts; developing a strategic vision for investment in the network; promoting integration between rail and other modes of transport; promoting voluntary action by train operators to win passengers; and promoting the needs of disabled passengers. Their needs were highlighted not only by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, but by my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), who, in an intervention, spoke about the difficulties of a constituent. If disabled people wish to travel, they should contact the relevant train operating company to be given advice. In general, an escort will be arranged.
As for the more general needs of disabled passengers, the Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that there must be strong consumer representation on our new rail authority, which will consider specific issues such as rail accessibility, which the regulator is also considering.
The contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich was typically pithy. She asked about appointments to rail users consultative committees. We wish to broaden their membership along the lines that my hon. Friend has detailed. We should like that membership to include people who use the railways and more young people. We also want vacancies on such committees to be filled through open advertisements, and there should be competition for those committee posts in accordance with the Nolan principles.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) spoke about rail freight and the need to ensure that railway land was available for the development of that traffic—the Government want to encourage that sector. We were asked what we were doing to stop the sale of railway land. In effect, Railtrack consults freight operators before disposing of land that might have a future use. Hon. Members also raised the possibility of a freeze on the sale of British Rail land. At the moment, BR is bound by statute to divest itself of surplus property at market value, but in the context of developing an integrated transport policy, we are examining whether planning guidance might be strengthened to protect suitable land for future rail use.
Hon. Members also asked what we are doing to encourage more freight on to the railways. The new freight companies are winning new traffic on to rail; English, Welsh and Scottish Railways aims to triple traffic in 10 years and Freightliner aims to increase the volume of container traffic by 50 per cent. in five years.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport also outlined the measures that we have taken to improve the freight facilities grant not only in financial terms, but by cutting red tape. We have also secured commitments from the French Government and Eurotunnel to get a better deal for rail freight carried through the channel tunnel and


beyond, not only by EWS but by potential new entrants to the market. In the context of the development of an integrated transport policy, we are considering what other measures might be introduced to encourage rail freight.
On the theme of service to the travelling public, the hon. Member for Lewes and others, including the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, raised the issue of bicycles on our trains. Only last year, I launched a code of practice providing for cyclists, and we encourage all train and station operators to adopt the code. Train operators are required by their franchise agreements to ensure that facilities are made available for the carriage of bicycles on trains, as far as is reasonably practicable; and the Government's new objectives, instructions and guidance to the franchising director now require that when a franchisee plans to order new rolling stock, he must discuss the provision of suitable space for accommodating bicycles with the franchise operator.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) raised the issue of what he perceives to be dangerous working practices, which might not only cause harm to employees, but create possible dangers for the travelling public. Employers have a statutory duty to ensure that employees in safety-critical posts do not work such hours as would be liable to cause fatigue. The Health and Safety Commission has issued a statutory code of practice interpreting that duty; and the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate is aware of drivers' concerns about new working patterns and is monitoring the situation carefully. However, if my hon. Friend would like to write to me stating specific details, I should be happy to look into the matter.
As I said, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was one of three speakers who could find nothing but good in the previous Government's practice of rail privatisation. He remarked on the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who has dedicatedly served the House and her constituents for a considerable time and who honours the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Transport Sub-Committee by her chairmanship. For the hon. Gentleman to dub her remarks as utter tosh was quite outrageous and scandalous. He raised several constituency issues, not least that of over-carrying, about which he has written to me.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the point that if we are to win more passengers on to our railways, the service provided by the train operating companies must be of the highest possible quality. Many Labour Members made the point that vast amounts of public money are being spent on our railways. The Government are determined to ensure that that vast sum produces a high-quality service, and that view will be part and parcel of all our policies, including our White Paper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who mentioned my birthplace, Birkenhead, more than once, raised the issue of stations. Again, there has to be co-operation between Railtrack, the train operating companies and those most concerned to ensure that stations, services and our whole railway system are improved for the benefit of individual travellers and the country as a whole.
In his balanced contribution, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) raised many of the issues that had been touched on by other hon. Members tonight. He also spoke about a bridge, but has not yet written to me on that subject. If Railtrack does not come to hear about what he said tonight, perhaps he should write to me, as a letter from me might help to move things along.
Tonight's debate has clearly demonstrated that the privatised railway system has not been the panacea promised by the previous Administration. It has a regulatory structure that often confuses; there is no long-term strategy for the development of the network; and—most important—passengers are not getting the service that they have a legitimate right to expect. Those are fundamental problems, and the Government are determined to address and to solve them. That is not to say that private train companies have not made improvements in some areas: I welcome the initiatives introduced by several train operating companies in respect of joint ticketing for bus and rail—a point also made by the hon. Member for Salisbury.
However, in opening the debate for the Government, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport set out in some detail the shortcomings of the railways as we found them last May. He also acknowledged that the reforms needed to remedy those failings cannot be made overnight. We shall need new legislation to establish the new rail authority and to implement some of the proposals that we plan to set out in our White Paper in the spring, on integrated transport policy. Those measures will build on the ones that we have already taken within the constraints imposed by the current complex regulatory structures. Those improvements have been widely welcomed as an important first step in creating the conditions for the railways to operate first and foremost in the public interest. That is what we have said we will do; that is what we are committed to do; and that is what we will deliver.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 296.

Division No. 158]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Baker, Norman
Keetch, Paul


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Livsey, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Brake, Tom
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Brand, Dr Peter
Moore, Michael


Breed, Colin
Oaten, Mark


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Öpik, Lembit


Burnett, John
Rendel, David


Burstow, Paul
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Sanders, Adrian


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Chidgey, David
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Cotter, Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Wallace, James


Fearn, Ronnie
Webb, Steve


Foster, Don (Bath)
Willis, Phil


George, Andrew (St Ives)



Harris, Dr Evan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Harvey, Nick
Mr. Paul Tyler and Mr. Donald Gorrie.


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)







NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Ainger, Nick
Dean, Mrs Janet


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Denham, John


Allen, Graham
Dismore, Andrew


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Donohoe, Brian H


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Doran, Frank


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dowd, Jim


Ashton, Joe
Drew, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Drown, Ms Julia


Austin, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bayley, Hugh
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Edwards, Huw


Begg, Miss Anne
Efford, Clive


Bennett, Andrew F
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Benton, Joe
Ennis, Jeff


Berry, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Best, Harold
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blackman, Liz
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blears, Ms Hazel
Flynn, Paul


Blizzard, Bob
Follett, Barbara


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Borrow, David
Foulkes, George


Bradshaw, Ben
Galbraith, Sam


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Galloway, George


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


(Dunfermline E)
Gerrard, Neil


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Godsiff, Roger


Buck, Ms Karen
Goggins, Paul


Burgon, Colin
Golding, Mrs Llin


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Grocott, Bruce


Canavan, Dennis
Grogan, John


Caplin, Ivor
Gunnell, John


Casale, Roger
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Caton, Martin
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cawsey, Ian
Hanson, David


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chaytor, David
Healey, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clapham, Michael
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda
Heppell, John


(Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hill, Keith


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Ann
Home Robertson, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hope, Phil


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Coleman, Iain
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretfotd)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hurst, Alan


Corston, Ms Jean
Hutton, John


Crausby, David
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Illsley, Eric


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Johnson, Miss Melanie


(Copeland)
(Welwyn Hatfield)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Ms Jenny


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
(Wolverh'ton SW)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald





Keeble, Ms Sally
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kinq, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)



Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Radice, Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rapson, Syd


Lepper, David
Raynsford, Nick


Levitt, Tom
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lock, David
Roy, Frank


Love, Andrew
Ruane, Chris


McAllion, John



McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCabe, Steve
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ryan, Ms Joan


McFall, John
Salter, Martin


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Savidge, Malcolm


McIsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sedgemore, Brian


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sheerman, Barry


McLeish, Henry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McNamara, Kevin
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McNulty, Tony
Singh, Marsha


Mactaggart, Fiona



McWalter, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Miss Geraldine


Mandelson, Peter
 (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Snape, Peter


Marshall-Andrews, Robert



Martlew, Eric
Soley, Clive


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Spellar, John


Meale, Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michael, Alun
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stevenson, George


Milburn, Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Miller, Andrew
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mitchell, Austin
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moffatt, Laura
Stringer, Graham


Moonie, Dr Lewis



Moran, Ms Margaret
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
(Dewsbury)


Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Timms, Stephen


Mountford, Kali
Tipping, Paddy


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Truswell, Paul


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Norris, Dan



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Hara, Eddie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Olner, Bill
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Vaz, Keith


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Vis, Dr Rudi


Palmer, Dr Nick
Walley, Ms Joan


Pearson, Ian
Wareing, Robert N


Pendry, Tom
Watts, David


Pickthall, Colin
White, Brian


Pike, Peter L
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Plaskitt, James
Wicks, Malcolm


Pollard, Kerry



Pond, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Pope, Greg
(Swansea W)


Pound, Stephen
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)






Wills, Michael
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Winnick, David
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wyatt, Derek


Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Wood, Mike
Mr. David Clelland and Mr. David Jamieson.


Wray, James

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House deplores the previous Government's privatisation of the railways, which has made a large profit for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer and the passenger, and has fragmented the rail network; welcomes the Government's interim package of measures introduced in November 1997—new Objectives, Instructions and Guidance for the Franchising Director, new planning criteria for OPRAF and a Concordat with the Rail Regulator—which puts the interests of rail users first; and commends the Government's commitment to establish effective and accountable regulation and to set up a new rail authority so that passengers' legitimate expectations are met.

Cancer Research

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Dr. Ian Gibson: Cancer remains a major medical problem in the United Kingdom. One in three people suffer some form of cancer. One in four die of it. Given the demographic changes—the population's increasing age—it is estimated that one in two people will suffer some form of cancer by 2020. A wide range of cancers was targeted as a priority in last week's Government Green Paper, "Our Healthier Nation".
Cancer research is an integral part of cancer medicine. Progress in cancer treatment has been steady, but very slow. Significant advances have been made by both scientists and clinicians working together to develop new treatments and to refine the results of such treatments. There have been important success stories in relation to testicular cancers, lymphomas and tumours of childhood, but, with common cancers such as lung, colon and breast cancer, there has been less spectacular progress. Prostate cancer has emerged as a major threat to male lives, and will require a severe strategic and clinical approach to have some form of cure.
We are at a watershed in cancer treatment and entering a new age of entirely novel therapies, where we will be able to identify people who are genetically at risk—for example, women who are at risk from breast cancer. In the past decade, an understanding of the fundamental cell defects that cause cancer, the mutant genes, has allowed us to consider discarding conventional treatments with agents such as cytotoxic drugs, in favour of a range of new, specific and effective agents.
Those new treatments include the use of the mutant gene, the so-called oncogene, as a target, which is thus selective; preventing cancer from spreading; and selectively re-engineering cancer cells to make them normal.
Such specific treatments should, we hope, eliminate many of the present debilitating side effects. At the same time, we must consider research into the care of patients and the role of organisations such as BACUP—the British Association of Cancer United Patients—the Royal College of Nursing, and MacMillan Cancer Relief, which provide information, counselling, support and nursing research for individuals, families and patients, and are key players in this area of research.
Other important research has disclosed that social class V individuals suffer more cancer than social class I; the same is true where there are marked social inequalities. That shows that environment and diet are strong influences in the differentiation between the classes, and therefore need further investigation. After all, it was in Britain that the definitive research into the link between smoking and lung cancer was carried out. The Food Standards Agency will offer support with diet and its link on cancers.
Cancer medicine requires a rigorous, reductionist, analytical approach to the disease. A knowledge of genetics, cell biology and molecular biology is increasingly needed so that clinicians can think of the clinical problem of cancer in fundamental terms and understand the scientific rationale for new treatments.


This essential core knowledge is included only at a very superficial level in the postgraduate training of cancer specialists.
In the past, research posts and research projects have been essential components of oncology training, but the opportunity to engage in such activities has been vitiated by the new strategies for national health service research and development introduced by the previous Government, which are heavily weighted in favour of operational and economic projects while providing very little support for clinicians wishing to pursue laboratory-based biomedical research.
Clinical research is the most widespread research activity in which clinicians participate. Clinical trials are the only way to evaluate and validate new treatments. It is vital that they are done, and done well. In the present state of knowledge, it is important that as many patients as possible with a malignant disease are offered the opportunity to participate in clinical trials. That is especially true of patients with the rarer malignancies. It is therefore important that there is support and encouragement for clinical trial participation at central and local level.
the last round of health service reforms by the previous Government unfortunately erected many obstacles in the path of clinical researchers. They have had the effect of severely restricting the scope for trial participation by non-academic departments. A recent article in the British Medical Journal by a senior consultant—sadly unsigned, even in this day and age, for fear of reprisals—illustrates the frustrations of trying to be both a clinician and a researcher. The lack of central support for and local commitment to clinical research activities, with NHS chief executives regarding clinical research with suspicion and as a potential drain on resources, is a major problem awaiting a solution.
Cancer research gets huge support from charities, and millions of pounds are donated each year by a generous British public. The Government can work with those private sources to underwrite long-term support. At the same time, the pharmaceutical industry—one of the success stories, we are told, in this country—seeks interaction with the wider scientific base in universities and research institutes.
I avidly await the views of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham on the effect of their proposed merger on these scientific issues—and, indeed, whether it will better the development of treatment for patients. The ground rules for applications to the National Lottery Charities Board need to be widened to support some of the initiatives that are needed.
We have a model—the National Cancer Institute in the United States. It supports cancer research and medicine throughout the USA. It supports a huge research and development operation in oncology, including laboratory science and clinical science at the highest level. It has pilot plant arrangements for the production of new compounds to be used in clinical studies.
Where there is co-development of new drugs with a pharmaceutical company, it has a degree of control over the pricing of the drug when it comes to market. That is extremely important for new drugs such as the Taxanes, which have been the subject of concern and rationing on

ground of cost. Some women have been denied treatment for breast cancer because NHS trusts have run out of money. We need some control nationally over that process.
Moreover, the NCI is a comprehensive organisation for conducting and monitoring clinical trials. It makes comprehensive information resources available to clinicians and patients on the Internet—at www.nih.gov—and not only provides but maintains those information resources in the light of emerging data. In some cases, information is reviewed and re-edited monthly. The United Kingdom has no comparable resource.
The United Kingdom urgently needs a national cancer institute that could and should work in concert with its US counterpart. The idea has support from the director general of the Imperial Cancer Research team, in London, from many consultants, and locally, as demonstrated today in our newspaper. The local Norfolk and Norwich Big C charity each year collects some quarter of a million pounds from the good people of Norwich and Norfolk, and supports the initiative to establish a national organisation.
The Royal Marsden hospital is an obvious candidate centre, but the site of the new flagship hospital, in Norwich, which is so beloved by my hon. Friend the Minister, might also be a fine place to site such an institute.
There certainly needs to be a national research initiative with support rather than obstruction at central and local level. In the USA, Clinton has given a massive budget increase to the National Institute of Health and the National Cancer Institute to boost scientific and clinical research. Those organisations have strong links with the Imperial Cancer Research laboratories, in London, and many individual scientists and clinicians collaborate with each other on both sides of the big pond.
There is currently a great opportunity to forge links and engage in jointly funded projects—all it needs is central organisation and political momentum. The failure of Nixon's so-called war on cancer will be forgotten if our new knowledge of the causes and biological basis of cancer is accepted and applied, and a proper infrastructure is established to move discoveries from laboratory to clinic to bedside.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I am grateful—as I am sure that the House is—to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for raising an extremely important subject, and for giving me the opportunity to stress the Government's determination to improve cancer services and our commitment to cancer research.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, cancer is a major problem. Each year, more than 200,000 new cases of cancer are diagnosed in England and Wales. Most of us are likely to know someone who has suffered from cancer. Tragically, in the United Kingdom, one in four people currently die from cancer. After coronary heart disease, cancers are the most common cause of death in our country. All that makes it vital that the Government have a strategy both for cancer care and for cancer research.
Before outlining the Government's strategy, I should like to record—I hope on behalf of the whole House—my thanks to all the organisations that help in tackling cancer,


whether they work in the field of research—organisations such as the Cancer Research Campaign or the Imperial Cancer Research Fund—or in helping patients and their families to deal with cancer, such as the services offered through MacMillan Cancer Relief and Marie Curie Cancer Care.
As hon. Members will know, cancer has an impact on the lives of most people in the United Kingdom, whether as patients, relatives, friends, neighbours or workmates. I know that the work of those organisations has often proved invaluable. I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating members of the public who each year donate huge sums to help in the fight against cancer.
Over the next 20 years, there are likely to be a number of major changes that will impact upon cancer care and cancer research. Research will have an important role in addressing those developments. The pattern of cancer incidence, for example, will change as the population becomes older. Cancer is mainly a disease of older age, with the majority of people in the UK who develop it aged over 70. We need also to ensure that our screening programmes continue to meet high-quality assurance standards, and that other potential population screening methodologies for other specific cancers are considered as research becomes available.
Just as important, with an increasing older population, it is likely that more people will have to live with cancer. This means that we need to ensure that research continues to improve our knowledge of palliative care so that we can further develop our support systems and improve the control of symptoms and side effects following treatment, thereby allowing patients, as far as possible, to lead a fulfilling, pain-free life.
Research can help to identify ways of preventing cancer, or spotting it in its early stages. Not all cancer deaths are preventable, but many are. Factors such as diet, smoking or the environment can cause cancer. As my hon. Friend rightly said, just last week the Government set out in the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" proposals to reduce the death rate from cancer among people aged under 65 years by at least a further one fifth.
That is a very challenging target, but one that it is important to meet. Had that reduction taken place in 1996, it would have resulted in some 6,000 deaths in this age group being avoided. We set out proposals for concerted action by the Government as a whole, in partnership with local organisations, to improve people's living conditions and health.
The Government believe that all cancer patients should be confident of uniform access to high-quality services, regardless of where they live. The care and treatment of cancer patients forms a substantial part of NHS work in both the primary and secondary care sectors—it accounts for around 7 per cent. of NHS resources. We want to ensure that the good working practices that already exist in many areas are developed more widely, so that we can get rid of some of the unacceptable variations in provision.
That is why the Government wish to progress the Calman/Hine framework set out in the document "A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services". As my hon. Friend will know, that recommended a strategic framework for delivering cancer services so that variations are eliminated.
A great deal of work has already been undertaken within the NHS to implement the recommendations of the Calman/Hine framework, with much being achieved locally. A key element has been the identification of cancer units and centres and local agreement on where and what cancers should be treated at individual hospitals. In many regions, this has involved site visits by multi-disciplinary teams to assess cancer provision against agreed cancer standards, to identify strengths and weaknesses, and to agree a time scale for change.
Full implementation cannot be achieved overnight, but we are determined to see some early improvements in services. We have set out a commitment in our White Paper "The New NHS" to
improve prompt access to specialist services so that everyone with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of their GP deciding they need to be seen urgently and requesting an appointment".
We will guarantee these arrangements for everyone with suspected breast cancer by April 1999 and for all other cases of suspected cancer by 2000. As my hon. Friend also knows, we have already made £10 million available to be used specifically for breast cancer services. It is being used already to give women rapid access to good diagnostic services and shorter waiting times for treatment. Indeed, some £120,000 of this investment has gone into services in Norwich.
The current reorganisation of our cancer services, based on the Calman/Hine recommendations, will enable patients to move through the system more effectively and to benefit from earlier diagnosis and treatment given by specialised multidisciplinary teams. It has been estimated that this alone could increase survival by as much as 10 per cent. when fully implemented. The publication of evidence-based guidance in support of the cancer strategy and the guidelines issued by the professions for the various cancer sites is allowing the benefits of research to be disseminated and translated into practice across the country.
I deal now with some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend. Let me assure him that the Government remain committed to encouraging research into the causes, prevention, early detection and treatment of all cancers. There are three main routes by which the Government currently fund research: through the Department of Health policy research programme, the NHS research and development programme, and the Medical Research Council.
First, the Department of Health's policy research programme funds high-quality research to provide a sound knowledge base for health services policy, social services policy, and central policies directed at the health of the population. It has an extensive portfolio of work on research into cancer. It provides long-term funding for two well-established and highly regarded research groups: the cancer screening evaluation unit at the Institute of Cancer Research, and the childhood cancer research group at the university of Oxford.
The programme also contributes to research external to the Department of Health. For example, it is making a substantial contribution to the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research's breast cancer screening trials, one of which is studying the potential value of screening women from the comparatively earlier age of 40. Other cancers being


researched include lung cancer, liver cancer and childhood tumours, and there are also studies on smoking and radon in houses.
Secondly, there is the NHS research and development programme which funds more than 300 studies and plays a key role in strengthening the scientific basis of health care. There is a specific NHS research and development cancer programme, which, after a detailed consultation process with key organisations in the cancer field, identified 25 priority areas including aetiology, palliative care, screening and treatment. Through the NHS research and development levy, the NHS also provides service support for externally funded clinical and basic research undertaken in NHS trusts. About £30 million was spent on service support for cancer research.
Thirdly, there is the main agency through which the Government support medical and clinical research—the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Trade and Industry. The council is an independent body, deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment.
In 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available, the council spent almost £15 million directly on research into cancer. The figure would rise considerably if a proportion of the council's spend on metabolism, molecular structure, genes and chromosomes, the immune system and other areas of basic medical research that may yield results relevant to cancer were included. The Department of Health has a concordat with the Medical Research Council that ensures discussion between the two organisations on their priorities for research.
The Medical Research Council is currently funding a number of research projects that will have a significant impact on the future of cancer services. For instance, the MRC is funding research looking at the application of new technologies, including imaging and molecular pathology, for improving tumour diagnosis, and for the prediction of tumour behaviour and response to therapy.
As my hon. Friend said, invaluable work is undertaken by the cancer research charities, such as the Cancer Research Campaign and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund. In 1995–96, it is estimated that charities affiliated to the Association of Medical Research Charities spent £124 million on cancer research. Together with the estimated £115 million spent each year on cancer research by the pharmaceutical companies, that means that, in total, an identified £263 million a year is spent on cancer research. It is a considerable sum of money, but it is not simply a matter of funding. We must be confident that appropriate research is undertaken, and that we build on the lessons from research.
My hon. Friend has called for a strategic body for cancer research. The National Cancer Institute in the United States of America is a well-respected and effective organisation. It is an interesting proposal, but the current arrangements in the United Kingdom are different, although equally effective.
Here, we have a national forum with representatives from the NHS, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical research charities and the research councils. It was established to ensure that the NHS fully understands the priorities, strategies and requirements of its research partners, and in turn ensures that they understand where NHS priorities lie. It covers research generally, but provides a forum for sharing information and taking a strategic overview of research activity.
On cancer in particular, there is the United Kingdom Co-ordinating Committee on Cancer Research, which is jointly funded by the Cancer Research Campaign, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Medical Research Council. It provides a useful forum for the exchange of views and information among funding bodies and other organisations specifically on cancer. It plays a major role in facilitating and co-ordinating joint initiatives. Importantly, it recommends proposals for the co-ordination of policies to sponsors, and advises on issues of relevance to the conduct of cancer research.
The co-ordinating committee also has a number of site-specific sub-committees developing basic science and clinical trial initiatives, including ones on breast, colorectal and gynaecological cancers and melanoma, as well as ad hoc groups advising on the current status of biomarkets and new technologies in clinical cancer research. I assure my hon. Friend that the co-ordinating committee maintains close links with my Department, and we have observer status on it.
I agree with my hon. Friend that clinical trials are the best way of evaluating and validating new treatments. All treatments in the NHS should be subject to clinical trials. We have recently appointed a clinical trials adviser to support and develop trials.
The debate has highlighted the potential for cancer prevention and, we hope, cure. Our knowledge of cancer is increasing year by year—indeed, day by day. We need to be confident that we have in place co-ordinated and appropriate research, and, most importantly, that we have the ability fully to exploit the results of that research for the benefit of the population. That is the challenge for the national health service and the country. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we shall work with all concerned to help meet that challenge.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.